TfchiUcil Rtp^ri 391

TANK CREW POSITION ASSIGNMENT*

oo

O

<

JNewell K./4aton, David yV/Bessemer,

r and Donald M.Aristransen

>/^

ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT KNOX. KENTUCKY

&m^s7^^]

D D C

pr^f?nnnr?

DEC 10 1979

A

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

(S)

7 Potatarl»»

Approvtd for public rtlot«: diltribution unlimittd.

- '. . J, -> it 1*0 0J<f i
BLANK PAGES 

IN THIS 

DOCUMENT 

WERE NOT 

FILMED 
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

JOSEPH ZEIDNER

Technical Director

WILLIAM L. HÄUSER

Colonel, U S Army

Commander

— i

NOTICES

DISTWHUTIOW: Primary diitnbuiion of thu rtport tm bmn m*d* by ARI. Uttrn iddrau corrtjoonHo.r»

conctrmng dittnbution of nportt to: U. S. Army MnMrcti InMituN for th« •thfvierd md Socicl Scnncn.

ATTN PERI P. 5001 EiwnhoMf AvtniM, AliMndna. Virgtnn 22333

r\HAL DltfOtlTlOM: Thu i««ort may ba dattrovad whan it ii no lenfar naadad. Plaaia do not laturn n to

ina u t. Army Ravarch Inatituta for tha tahwioral and Social Scianoai.

NOTE Tha findinft in thia raport ara not to ba conMruad at an official Daoortmant of t» Army peaition.

uniaM to datifnatad by othar authornad documanti.
Unclassified

IICuniTV CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PACE («f»» DM« Knlmrtd)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

I RCPORT NUMICn

Technical Report 391

READ INSTRUCTIONS

BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

/

2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 1. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUUBEB

» TITLE (m4 Subtlllm)

TANK CREW POSITION ASSIGNMENT

S. TYPE OF REPOUT * PERIOD COVERED

I. PERFORMING OHO REPORT NUMBER

7 AuTNOR(«J

Newell K. Eaton, David W. Bessemer, and

Donald M. Kristiansen

1. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERC«)

I PERFORMING OROANUATION NAME ANO ADDRESS

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences (PERI-IK)

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333

10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK

AREA * WORK UNIT NUMBERS

2Q763731A770

<l CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS

U.S. Armor Center and U.S. Army Armor School

Fort Knox, KY 40121

It. REPORT DATE

October 1979

11. NUMBER OF PAGES

96

U. MONITORING AOCNCV NAME t ADDREIV" tflffmnl Inm SMSBHSS Ollle») If. SECURITY CLASS, (ol thl, npon)

Unclassified

<Sa. OECLAUIFICATION/DOWNORADINO

SCHEDULE

I*. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT fat Uli« ItapwU

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

IT. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (el Ih» akilrael mlm* In Block 30, If dlllmrltl ham Ktporl)

II. SUPPLEMENTARY NOT»

I*. KEY «ORDS fContlini« on nrwn «Id* IInacUHfr •"* Idtmllr by black mmtti)

Assignment Tank gunnery

Selection Tank driving

Classification Armor

H. ÄtBrAACT rC**tmm — fwrm «t^ U nmnnmr mm* ItmuMr *r hlock 5583

This research was conducted to determine whether available paper-andpencil aptitude and training measures could be used to ptedict tank driver,

qunner, and tank commander performance, and if üO, to develop appropriate

prediction equations based on the aptitude measures.

The research was conducted in three phases. The first two phases were

conducted with armor trainees at Fort Knox, and dealt with the gunner and«—.

(Continued)

(rv*v

m .'.STn Mn EDtnoN or t MOV «»is OBSOLETE

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE fWr«. Data Bnlfd)
"'- HP»

UnclassifiBd

HCUWTY CLAt«IFICATIOM Of TMI« PAOff»h«o D.I. Knlw.<f;

\/

tem 20 (Continued)

driver positions. The third phase was conducted with armor crewmen in

operational armor battalions, and dealt with the tank commander and gunner

positions. In Phases I and II, at Fort Knox, measures of trainee aptitudes,

training performance, driving performance, and main-gun tank gunnery were

collected for trainees in the sample. Aptitude measures included the Armed

Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) raw scores and additional

paper-and-pencil tests, while training measures included performance on

tests relating to tank weapons, maintenance, communication, etc. The criterion performances were tank commander ratings of trainee M60 tank driving

on a standardized course and number of hits during main-gun tank firing.

During Phase III, aptitude and main-gun firing measures were collected for

tank commanders and gunners in a rample from a USAREUR armor division. Aptitude measures were based on a battery of papei-and-pencil tests. Gunnery

measures were based on performance during tank crew qualification firing

at Grafenwohr, West Germany.

With armor trainees at Port Knox a number of potentially useful predictor variables were identified in phase I. These included four ASVAB

tests and three additional paper-and-pencil tests as gunnery predictors

and six ASVAB tests and two additional paper-and-pencil tests as driving

predictors. Only one of the driving predictor tests was validated in

Phase II, and none of the p^per-and-pencil tests was correlated with the

gunnery measure. Ni /ertheless, certain methodological problems entered

Phase II, so the failure to validate the other tests did not necessarily

indicate a true lack of relationship with criterion performance. In

Phase III, conducted with operational units, none of the tank commanders'

or gunners' paper-and-pencil test scores was correlated with tank crew

qualification gunnery scores.

The results from Phases I and II suggest that the continuing need to

ma/.e optimal assignments of Army recruits to gunner/loader or driver

training may best be addressed by continued research on the paper-andpencil measures identified in Phase I, as well as the exploration of other

techniques such as job sample performance measurement. In continued research with the paper-and-pencil tests, formulas based on both regressionbased models and unit-weighted models seem appropriate. The results from

Phase III indicate that paper-and-pencil tests Jo not seeta to offer promise

of predicting performance of personnel in operational units on tank crew

qualification gunnery. Perhaps research efforts could best be directed

toward the development and empirical validation of job sample and simulator

techniques based on sound task analyses. Such job sample/simulator research

might also lead to measures to supplement prediction of gunnery performance

for armor trainees.

Unclassified

i

H SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEflHi.n D.I. Enl.r.«
TMMCII Report 391

TANK CREW POSITION ASSIGNMENT

Newell K. Eaton, David W. Bessemer,

and Donald M. Kristlansen

Submitted by:

Do.iald F. Haggard, Chief

ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY

Approved by:

E. Ralph Ousek, Director

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

RESEARCH LABORATORY

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

October 1979

Army Project Number

2Q763731A770

Performance Oriented

Individual 1 raining

Approved for public rele»$e; diltribution unlimited.

ill
ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and for other research and military agencies. Any findings ready

for implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last part

of the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

•

i

•

iv
FOREWORD

A major research area for the U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) is performance-oriented individual

skill development and evaluation. The ARI Field Unit at Fort Knox,

Ky., in its work unit area "Crew Position Assignnent Methods and Management Factors" (Army Project 2Q763731A770) , is concerned with improving methods used to assign personnel to training and service in tankcrew duty positions. The long-range program includes developing and

validating predictor tests to improve assignment practices and lead to

enhanced tank crew combat proficiency.

The research reported here describes development and initial validation of predictive test batteries for assigning tank crewmen to the

positions of tank commander, gunner/loader, and driver based on objective

measures of their aptitudes and performance. The subtests were from

the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) , other selected

paper-and-pencil tests, and interim training performance measures. The

research was designed in response to requests by the USA Armor Center

(USAARMC) and the USA Armor School (USAARMS) .

( JOSEPH ZEWER

Technical Director

'*^^U
TANK CREW POSITION ASSIGNMENT

BRIEF

Objective:

To determine whether available paper-and-pencil aptitude and training measures could be used to predict tank driver, gunner, and tank

commander performance, and if so, to develop appropriate prediction

equations based on the aptitude measures.

Procedure:

The research was conducted in three phases. In Phase I, which

dealt with gunner and driver positions, measures of trainee aptitudes,

training performance, driving performance, and main-gun tank gunnery

were collected at Fort Knox, Ky., for the 97 armor trainees in the sample. Aptitude measures included the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude

Battery (ASVAB) raw scores and additional paper-and-pencil tests; training measures included performance on tests relating to tank weapons,

maintenance, communication, etc. The criterion performances were tank

commander ratings of trainee M60 tank driving on a standardized course

and number of hits during main-gun tank firing.

Phase II was intended to replicate Phase I, using a larger sample.

Three armor companies at Fort Knox were involved: 142 trainees participated in driver criterion analysis, and 112 trainees participated in

gunnery criterion analysis. Phase II variables were similar to those

used in Phase I, but Phase II gave greater emphasis to off-road driver

skills.

In Phase III, aptitude and main-gun firing measures were collected

for tank commanders and gunners (number of participants varied from

159 to 211) in a sample from a USAREUR armor division. Aptitude measures

were based on a battery of paper-and-pencil tests. Gunnery measures were

based on performance during tank crew qualification firing at Grafenwohr,

West Germany.

Findings:

Phase I resulted in identification of a number of potentially useful predictor variables. These included four ASVAB tests and three additional paper-and-pencil tests as gunnery predictors and six ASVAB

tests and two additional paper-and-pencil tests as driving predictors.

However, only one of the driving predictor tests was validated in

Phase II, and none of the paper-and-pencil tests was correlated with

vll
the gunnery measure. Nevertheless, there were certain differences in

rtsearch conditions between Phase I and Pi.ase II, so the failure to

validate the other tests did not necessarily indicate a Tue lack of

relationship with criteria performance. In Phase III, conducted with

operational units, none of the tank commanders' or gunners' paper-andpencil test scores was correlated with tank crew qualification gunnery

scores.

Utilization of Findings:

The results from Phases I and II suggest that the continuing need

to make optimal assignments of Army recruits to gunner/loader or driver

training may best be addressed by continued research on the paper-andpencil measures identified in Phase I, as well as the exploration of

other techniques such as job sample performance measurement. In continued research with the paper-and-pencil tests, formulas based on

regression-based and unit-weighted models seem appropriate. Phase III

results indicate that paper-and-pencil tests do not seem to offer promise of predicting performance of personnel in operational units on tank

crew qualification gunnery. Future research efforts might best be directed toward the development and empirical validation of job sample

and simulator techniques based on sound task analyses. Such job sample/

simulator research might also lead to measures that would supplement

prediction of gunnery performance for armor trainees.

•

vill U
TANK CRHW POSITION ASSIGNMENT

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

PHASE I

Page

1

5

6

METHOD

Research Participants

Instrument Selection

ASVAB

Supplemental Tests

OSUT Measures

Criteria for Driving and Gunnery

Driving

Gunnery

Procedure

RESULTS

Data Handling

Data Analysis

Predictions of Driving Criterion Performance

ASVAB Results

ASVAB Plus ART Variable Results

ASVAB, ARI, and OSUT Variable Results

Predictor Variables with Significant Zero Order

Correlations

Predictions of Gunnery Criterion Performance

ASVAB Results

ASVAB Plus ARI Variable Results

ASVAB, ARI, and OSUT Variable Results

Predictor Variables with Significant Zero Order

Correlations

Personal Preference

DISCUSSION

7

7

7

7

9

11

11

15

16

16

16

16

16

17

17

20

20

20

20

20

24

24

26

ix
PIUSL II

NRNOO

Research Participants

Instruments and Criterion Variables

Procedure

RESULTS

Data Handling

Data Analyses

L'.-iving Criterion Results

Gunnery Criterion Results

DISCUSSION

PHASE III

METHOD

Research Participants

Instruments and Criterion Variables

Procedure

RESULTS

Data Handling - Predictor Variables

Data Handling - Criterion Variables

Predictor-Criterion Relationships

DISCUSSION

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

APPENDIXES

DISTRIBUTION

Page

29

M

29

29

30

31

31

3i

35

35

39

41

41

41

42

43

45

45

4b

48

48

52

55

57

95

;

'£
page

TAILES

Table I. Summary of Tank Table 1-V, ARMOR OSUT 14

2. ASV'Mi VS Driving Criterion Multiple Regression Summary 18

Table - Phase I

3. \SV\B Plus AR1 VS Driving Criterion Multiple Regression 19

Summary Table - Phase I

4. Variables with Significant Positive (1-Tail p< .05) 21

('orrelations with Driving Performance

5. ASVAB VS Gunnery Criterion Multiple Regression Summary 22

Table - Phase I

6. ASVAB Plus ARI VS Gunnery Criterion Multiple Regression 23

Summary Table - Phase I

7. Variables with Significant Positive (1-Tail p '.05) 25

Correlations with Gunnery Performance

8. ASVAB Plus ARI Plus Personnel Preference VS Gunnery 27

Criterion Multiple Regression Summary Table - Phase I

9. Tests of Goodness of Fit to llypergeometric Distributions 32

- Phase II

10. Reliability of Main Gun Hits - Phase II 34

11. Correlations Among Criterion Scores 36

12. ASVAB Plus ARI VS Gunnery Criterion Multiple Regression 38

Gunnery Table - Phase II

13. Table VIII Tank Crew Qualification Course - Phase III 44

14. Correlations Between Predictor Variables and 49

Standardized Hit and Time Measures for TCs and GRs

Phase III

xl
TANK CRUW POSITION AS.SIC.NMIiNT

INTRODUCTION

Recent research has been conducted to identify potential predictors of successful performance in the tank crew positions of Tank

Commander, Cunner, and Driver. This research has been responsive to

changing needs within the Armor community. Not only are new, more

capable, and more sophisticated tanks being introduced into the inventory, but training is becoming more specialized and specific to

crew position. Both developments demand methods for identifying individuals who have the best potential for good performance of their

assigned crew duties. The general purpose of this research was to

determine the potential for assignment of tank crewmen to the positions

of tank commander, gunner, and driver based on objective measures of

their aptitudes and achievement. The specific rationale and background for each phase of the research reported herein is detailed in

sections describing specific phases of the research.

Research toward the development of a prediction battery for identifying Armor trainees for training in a gunner-specific or driver-specific

program was first conceptualized in response to recommendations made by

2 2

the Total Tank System Study (T S ). These recomnendations encompassed

broad and sweeping changes to the Armor training and assignment system

2 2

since the T S charter gave license for a new look at the entire system.

2 2

In 1975, T S was superseded by the Tank Force Management Group (TFMG),

whose similar charter derived from the Chief of Staff, Army rather than

the connander of TRADOC.

1
TFMC, in its recommendations (1977) voiced concern over the state

of training in Armor. The group felt that the production of an unspecialized armor crewman with MOS HE was inadequate in the face of

proliferating weapon systems and increasing emphasis on Armor's role

on the combined-arms battlefield. The task of the armor crewman,

particularly the gunner, was seen to be substantially different for

the M60A1 tank with its coincident range finder and unstabilized turret

than for the M60A3/XM1 with laser range finders and stabilized turrets.

The M551/M60A2, which mount a different main gun with a dual capability

for missile launching and conventional round firing, were more different

still. And TFMC: expressed a reluctance to field the XM1 with the existing

training and assignment system, since the full combat potential of the

XM1 was unlikely to be achieved.

Specific recommendations involved removing the Armor Crewman from

Career Management Field (CMF) 11 and opening up a CNF 19 specifically

for Armor. Within CMF 19, drivers, and gunners for the various duty

positions and weapon systems, would carry different MOS. For example,

the M60A1 driver would carry MOS 19F while the M60A1 gunner would

carry MOS 19E. Drivers and gunners for the XM1 would carry MOS 19L

and 19K, respectively. The Group recognized that the existing training

program was not set up to produce these soldiers. The MOS HE Basic

Armor Training (BAT) program was designed to produce a soldier considered

to be a qualified loader, licensed driver, and familiarized gunner.

TFMG reconmended that the graduate be either a qualified tactical driver

or a qualified gunner. In implementation, It was further recommended

that assignment should be based on aptitude for driver-specific or gunnerspecific training and performance.

2

'
In the system envisioned for the M60A1 tank, a soldier in Armor

One Station Unit Training (OSUT) would first receive Basic Combat Training (BCT) and Basic Armor Training (BAT). On the completion of BCT and

BAT, one third of the trainees would receive driver training, and two

thirds of the trainees would receive gunner/loader training. A major

question was raised "How can assignment of personnel to MOS 19E/K or

19F/L training best be made?" (Weapon system-specific training within

duty position (i.e., separate assignment to 19E or 19K) was not addressed

in this research since the Armor Center had not identified separate

training programs).

The research reported here addresses some aspects of the question.

The research la based directly on that of Greenstein and Hughes (1976)

with an Armor AIT (Advanced Individual Training) company, and by Eaton

(1978) with a TOE Armor Battalion. Greenstein and Hughes used a battery

of aptitude tests, taken from Kaplan (1965) and Thomas and Stemberg

(1964), as potential predictors of Armor AIT driving and gunnery

performance. In addition, they obtained Armed Forces Qualification Test

(AFQT) and Army Classification Battery (ACB) Conbat, Field Artillery,

and Motor Maintenance Aptitude Area scores for their research participants.

They found numerous suggestive relationships between their aptitude

measures and driving and gunnery performances. None were of sufficient

magnitude, however, to permit their use without further validation. The

primary finding of their research was the Independence of driving and

gunnery measures.
Eaton administered a battery of paper-and-pencll aptitude testa

chosen from tests suggested by Kaplan (1965), Thomas and Stemberg (1964),

Greensteln and Hughes (1976), and Hughes (1976). He also measured performance on a training simulator (Burst-on-Target Trainer DVC 17-58,

DA Pamphlet 310-12), subcallber firing (Mini-Tank Range Complex,

TC 17-12-6), and critical performance component, or "Job sample" Job

tests, such ab ranging and gun-laying. Both the paper-and-pencll aptitude measures, and the simulator, subcallber firing, and Job sample

measures were then tried as predictors of Table VIII tank gunnery performance and driver performance ratings.

Data analysis provided a potentially useful equation relating

gunnery performance to tank commander's scores on four aptitude tests.

For gunners and drivers, several individual aptitude tests showed some

promise of predictive success. Further, both simulator and Job sample

measures showed potential for tank commanders and gunners. Because of

the relatively small size (less than 40 crewmen in each position) of

the sample provided by one battalion, however, the research could best

suggest the potential for objective, test-based assignment rather than

specifying the specific test battery to be used.

!

i

1%
The research reported here was based on the results obtained by

(Irecnstein, Hughes, and Baton, but the scale of the research was extended

to include enough soldiers to allow firmer conclusions. Three

phases of the research are reported. Phases 1 and II dealt with prediction

* research oriented toward the driver and gunner positions. One company of

Armor OSUT (one-station unit training) trainees participated in

Phase I and three OSUT companies participated in Phase II.

Phase III was very much like Eaton's research in that tank commanders

and gunners assigned to tanks in an operational armor division

participated in the research. The research conducted in Phase I and II

in OSUT did not deal with the tank commander position because OSUT

trainees are not trained as tank commanders. Hence, no meaningful measure

of tank commander performance could be obtained. The Phase III research

did not include the driver position because the performance criterion for

Phase III, Table VIII gunnery at Grafenwoehr, Germany, did not provide

an objective measure of driver performance.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

The specific objectives of this research were (1) to determine

whether aptitude measures thus far identified could be used to predict

performance in three tank crew positions, and if so (2) to develop

appropriate prediction equations based on the aptitude measures. The

details and findings of Phases I, II, and III are described below.
PHASE I

Before research could address the question of how to best assign

personnel to tank driver or gunner/loader training, two Initial considerations needed to be addressed. First, at what point In a man's

progression from Reception Station to completion of training would the

assignment decision be made? And second, what data would be available

at that point on which to base an assignment decision?

To expedite the research program an Initial assunptlon was made

following the advice of the Armor School. It was assumed that the

assignment decision could be made either prior to BCT, or following BCT

and BAT. This assumption permitted several data options. If the CMF

change were approved, DCSPER-DA would need validity data on which to base

a selector for CMF 19. This validity data would have to be based largely

on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). Thus, collecting ASVAB test scores would provide test score/Aptitude Area data to

validate against performance In training. A post-BCT/BAT assignment

decision would permit supplemental testing of potential Armor crewman at

the Reception Station or during BCT/BAT if instruments could be found

that added to the validity of the ASVAB against driving or gunnery training success. Finally, performance measures from BCT/BAT would also be

available and could be used if they added to the validities obtained from

the ASVAB and the supplemental tests.
METHOD

Research Participants.

Research participants were HE (armor crewman) trainees in one

Armor OSUT company at Ft Knox, Kentucky. Training took place between

November 1976 and February 1977. There were 97 trainees with complete

data sets included in the data analysis.

Instrument Selection.

A list of measures for use in this research was drawn up in conjunction

with representatives of the Armor Training Center and the Armor School.

These measures are listed below, by source.

ASVAB. All sixteen test scores from the ASVAB were obtained, including

those tests that are-part of Aptitude Area CO, the selector for CMF 11.

These tests are:

General Information

Numerical Operations

Attention to Detail (part of CO)

Word Knowledge

Arithmetic Reasoning (part of CO)

Space Perception (part of CO)

Mathematical Knowledge

Electronics Information

Mechanical Comprehension

General Science

Shop Information (part of CO)

Automotive Inlormation

Classification Inventory - Maintenance Scale

Classification Inventory - Attentiveness Scale

Classification Inventory - Electronics Scale

Classification Inventory - Combat Scale (part of CO)

Supplemental Tests. Seven tests were selected based on prior ARI research.

Lateral Perception (PT 5088). A 50 item timed test.

"^ach item consists of two rows of from 1 to 10 alphabetic and/or keyboard
characters each. The two rows comprising each item are presented side

by side with different degrees of left-right separation between rows.

The examinee is required to examine the two rows of characters and respond

on a separate answer sheet either "same" or "different". Score is number

of items correct. "

Visual Recognition (PT 5089). A forty item timed test in which

the examinee is required to match a geometrical design given on the left

with one of five geometrical designs given on the right. Score is number

of items correct.

Visual Memory (PT 5087). A twenty item timed test in which the

examinee is first required to commit to memory each design in a matrix

of 20 different geometrical designs. The examinee is then, in the absence

of the matrix, required to view 20 rows each containing designs similar

to those viewed in the matrix. In each row the examinee is required to

choose the design which was presented in the matrix. Score is number

of items correct.

Locations (PT 2852). A 48 item timed visual test consisting of

sets of four small photographs, each set being accompanied by a large

photograph having five lette.-ed locations marked. The examinee is

required to identify the letfeied location in the large photograph from

which each of the four small photographs were taken. Six of the 12 sets

of four small photographs are darkened to give a "night" effect. Score

is number of items correct.
Speed of Perception (PT 5086). A timed test in which the examinee

is required to locate in succession the numbers from 1-50 where alternate

numbers vary in size and where each is presented in a random location on

one side of a standard 8.5 by 11 inch sheet of paper. Score is highest

number reached.

Simulated Zeroing. A test (constructed by ARI - Ft Knox) to determine the extent to which the subject is able to locate the geometric

center of a hypothetical three round shot group. Score is measured

based on deviation of perceived center from the true center.

Object Completion (PT 2853). A timed test requiring the examinee

to identify a set of partially obscured line drawings of military objects

such as field glasses, canteen etc. Score is correct number of figures

identified.

OSUT_Measures.

Personal Preference. A single item eliciting preference for

assignment as a gunner or a driver. This item was administered three times;

on entrance to OSUT, after basic driving, and after preliminary gunnery. (Because

of incomplete data, only the first administration was used in the analysis.)

Performance on the M34 Driving Simulator. Initial driving

instruction is given on the M34 Driving Simulator. This instruction

covers such areas as starting and stopping procedures, use of the light

box, hand and arm signals, and night flashlight signals. A checklist

was developed for use with the M34 (Appendix A). Trainees were tested
on the M34 twice; on completion of M34 training by the unit cadre and by

Brigade testing personnel as a part of the midcycle test. In both cases,

the checklist was used to measure performance. The first testing was

used in the analysis. The Brigade tests were not used in the

analysis because there was essentially no variance across the trainees.

Performance on the Midcycle Test. Three of the stations on the

midcycle test were used in this research. This test was administered

and scored by Brigade testing personnel.

Maintenance. There are throe performance measures on the maintenance station; measuring track tension, checking and servicing of air

cleaners, and extracting data from a lubrication order including demonstrating where and how to lube or check selected items. Score was number

of performance measures rated "go".

Communications. There are five performance measures on the

communicati-jns station; (1) placing the CVC helmet into operation and

correctly using the three-position communication switch, (2) placing

the AM-1780 audio amplifier into operation, (3) placing the RT-841

radio transmitter into operation, (4) performing a radio check using an

AN/VRC-64 radio, and (5) transmitting a prepared message using an AN/

VRC-64 radio and using proper radio-telephone procedures. Score was

number of performance measures rated "go".

Weapons. There are four performance measures on the weapons

station; (1) clearing the caliber .45 pistol, (2) disassembly/assembly/

function check on the caliber .45 pistol, (3) clearing the M3A1 SMG,

<

...

10
and (4) disassembly/assembly/function check on the M3A1 SMG. Score was

number of performance measures rated "go".

Caliber .45 Pistol Qualification. There was some feeling in the

Fort Knox Armor community that similar skills may be involved in the

various types of "gunnery", i.e., caliber .45 pistol, M16 rifle, and

tank gunnery. To check on this possibility, scores obtained by the trainees

during caliber .45 pistol qualification were included in the research.

Reaction Time. Popular legend has it that reaction time is a

factor in both driving and gunnery. The reaction time measures obtained

as part of the Motor Vehicle Driver^Battery II were included to check

on this possibility.

Criteria for Driving and Gunnery.

Driving. At the time of this research—indeed, at the time of this

writing—no universally accepted criterion existed for tactical tank

driving. No measuring device existed that was considered a valid

Indicator. An attempt was made, as part of this research, to begin the

development of a tactical driving course and a performance checklist

covering the salient tasks In tactical driving. Personnel from the

1st Brigade at Ft Knox, In conjunction with ARI, developed a tactical

driving course specifically for use In this research. It was hoped

that this driving course would provide useful measures of driving

performance.

(
The driving course checklist of Greensteln and Hughes (1976) was

helpful in the development of a checklist for the advanced driving course

used in this research. Their checklist did not cover as many driving

tasks as were incorporated into the scenario for this research, but did

serve as a useful beginning for the panel of NCO driving instructors

who developed the list of items for the course. This list was reduced

to checklist and verified by a second panel of NCO driving instructors.

The final driving checklist is at Appendix L. In general, the driving

course followed the checklist, and included starting and stopping

procedures, driver compartment equipment operation, driving following

hand signals, on-road driving, and terrain driving.

In addition to the checklist, a form was developed on which the

examining tank connander could rank the trainees he tested into four

groups; the best drivers in the group, above average for the group but

not the best drivers, below average for the group but not the poorest

drivers, and the poorest drivers in the group. This was done in hopes

of avoiding one of the problems associated with GO/NO-GO checklists—

the small number of "NO-GOs" usually obtained. It was not used in the

analysis, however, because most examining tank commanders were loath

to rank anyone below average. Despite the instructions printed on the

form itself and half-hour training session, most of the trainees were

ranked above average. The ranking form is at Appendix C.

12
Gunnery. The Armor OSUT course of instruction current at the

time of the research included practice firing on Tank Tables I-V. These

firing exercises are outlined in Table 1.

In discussions with the Armor Center and the Armor School, it was

determined that this normal sequence was inadequate for measuring

gunnery performance for this research. It was felt that more main

gun engagements would be needed since the agreed-upon gunnery

criterion would be target hits at various ranges against both moving

and stationary targets. A modified Tank Table VI was developed by

the Armor School to serve as a gunnery criterion for the research.

The table consisted of 14 main gun rounds fired from a stationary

tank. There were 6 exercises: two 3-round Burst on Target exercises (where

incorrect ranges were purposely indexed) against stationary targets,

two standard engagements against stationary targets, and two against

moving targets. A more complete description of this Table is

included in Appendix D.

*Burst on Target refers to a method of adjusting the sight picture for

a second round based on the location of the "burst" of the first round,

For example, if the first round "burst" low and to the right of the

target, the second round would be aimed higher and to the left of the

first round aiming point.

15
Table 1

SUMMARY OF TANK TABLE I-V, ARMOR OSUT

Table Firing Device Firing Platform Target

I Laser

II Laser

111 Laser

IV Modified Main Gun

V Modified Main Gun

Coaxial MG

(Boresight and Zero Exercise)

Stationary Stationary

Stationary Moving

Stationary Stationary

Stationary Moving

Stationary

Number of

Rounds

2

4

150

14
c

Procedure.

ASVAB scores were collected by Brigade representatives from the

Reception Station records. ARI paper and pencil tests were administered

and scored by ARI personnel. OSUT measures were obtained by Brigade representatives during the course of normal OSUT training. The driver criterion

measures were scored by Brigade Tank Commanders on the tactical driving

course. The gunnery measures were collected by ARI personnel placed on

scoring platforms equipped with BC scopes and tank-to-platform intercom

equipment, during the Table VI main gun firing exercise.

.

IS
RESULTS

Data Handling.

ASVAB scores were obtained directly from the Ft Knox Reception

Station. ARI tests were hand-scored and tabulated as were OSUT measures

provided by the 1st Brigade. Driver checklist and gunnery scores were

standardized to eliminate rater/scorer variance. The mean and standard

deviation of the raw scores were computed separately for each rater or

scorer, and were used to compute standard scores having a mean of 20

and a standard deviation of 5. Means and standard deviations for each

variable, as well as variable intercorrelations, are presented In

Appendix E.

Data Analysis.

Data were analyzed In the following manner. First ASVAB variables

alone were related to driver and gunnery criterion variables, using

standard forward-test-selection stepwlse multiple regression techniques.

This was done because ASVAB scores are readily available for trainees

entering Armor OSUT and. If useful In performance prediction, could be

used without the need for any further testing. Second, ASVAB plus ARI

variables were evaluated In the same way. Third, all ASVAB, ARI, and

OSUT variables were evaluated in the same way. In all analyses the Fto-enter was set at 2.76, representing a p of approximately .10.

Finally, all predictors with significant positive correlations with

performance criteria were identified. All paper and pencil tests having

significant positive correlations with driver performance were entered

into a unit-weighted predictor. This was accomplished by standardizing

scores for each significant variable, and summing the standardized

variables for each subject to form the driving predictor. A similar

procedure was used to form a unit-weighted gunnery predictor.

16
Predictions of Driving Criterion Performance,

ASVAB Kesults. Six ASVAB variables were chosen In the driving

criterion variable analysis: Automotive Information, Classification

Inventory - Electronics Scale, General Information, Numerical Operations.

Shop Information, and Classification Inventory - Attentiveness Scale.

These six tests yielded a multiple R of .527, F 5.75, p<.001.

A summary table of these results is shown in Tble 2.

ASVAB Plus ARI Variable Results. The best two ASVAB variables.

Automotive Information and Classification Inventory - Electronics

Scale, were forced in this analysis first with other ASVAB and ARI

variables entering afterwards in a forward stepwise multiple regression

analysis. The results indicated five tests, three--Automotive

Information, Classification Inventory - Electronics Scale, and

Classification Inventory - Attentiveness Scale from ASVAB, and

Lateral Perception and Locations from ARI variables. The multiple

R was .526, F = 6.95, p <.001. These results are shown in Table 3.

ASVAB, ARI. and OSUT Variable Results. When the best four

ASVAB and ARI variables. Automotive Information, Classification

Inventory - Electronics Scale, Lateral Perception, and Classification

Inventory - Attentiveness Scale, were forced first into the analysis

of ASVAB, ARI, and OSUT variables, none of the OSUT variables was

selected by the analysis to enter into the prediction equation.

17

I
4) IU

•HH

5,

^ooooo

oooooo

oooooo

4>

a:I• H

CO

ex

•H

«J

vO <N f)*OO

00 ^4 «o« >o«

pHW >-( IO O» t~-

<N oo r^ vo tn ui

t^ K> K> Ol NO O)

f» »O I*) NO »o to

to (NO rtOO

f^ O» rj^^ h^

to O^ to 'O^ (N

w to^ ^r* J}

XI

zo

a:

tuF

a: u85>m|<

u.

C9 U

cd £

T3

a>

-> cw

XI

•H

n) >

tO to 0> (N sO LO

\0 r^ ffi »o oo i/i

LO f^ to PH (N rO 1 1 1

\0 fl vO "1 <-Jt •^ vO to h- Tf * 00 vO

vO t-~ 00 vO to r^

*

oo a>t t^ in to f"-

PH -H"u

/—s

r-^ «->

4JI

u <u o v

-H 4-> H <

v_^ v*-/

fc fr CO o

OP +J H C V) C J a) c c u « > o o > C tH 4J «J C l-H o « rt o

<4-iceM 'Hc

eoS« v>o

M

^ .2 g-§^

4) cdBh rt

>O t-i -ioO

•H -H c9 <p .H

AJ <M r*O ti<M

O -H (9 -H l-l -rt B f> u u in O M U t) Oi V)

<-" n)CeO CO

3 •-•«3 x: ^H

<uuzwu

18
oIc

co

0)

a.|

uS

•az

C9O

EuMuu

7-.

a. 5

CO>

CO

Q. >

CO<

u. c

oooo

oooo

oooo

<N t^m r^

•-I ifl r~^

do io (^

oo ao r^^

r^ ro to ffi <N M ^ 00 »^ O

roMMO •-"

t^W t~- 00 sO

"5 04 >CO <N

tOMtt lO

lO^^ Irt I/) (Nl

00 »t to »r >0 i-l

tn to ^H ro »-i^

-H to rjo fN

O •-I »N rJ 00

tO vO Ol 00 lO

CM 00 00 to fO

If

<-•

CJ

a>

U4

e<

£r fr o 0

O *-" 4J

•H

c

c

4-1 «>

p

A

>e>

!

c

oc

•0 t—* •H 11

<ä

B 4J

u <h

cac

Vco 0)0

J hH •H

O .H

i 4-1hp

u cdVn

>

o a.

u in

s •H

•H

Sc

rH 4-1 «4-1 ~< IM

0

A

i

•H

« .H -H

(II in

M in 4->

•H

0 in «> inn

E *J

« 4J

no

M

3 -H« -i0

>

<uJu -J

19
II III I

Predictor Variables with Significant Zero Order Correlations.

Eight ASVAB, ARI, or OSUT variables had significant positive (1 tail,

p < .05) correlrtlons with the driving criterion. These are shown in

Table 4. The unit weighted model p/ovlded a predictor composed of

ASVAB-only tests included Numerical Operations, Arithmetic Reasoning,

Electronics Information, Automotive information, and Classification

Inventory-Electronics Scale. This composite had a correlation of ,396

with driving performance, and .111 with gunnery performance. The unit

weighted composite with all significant paper and pencil variables

Included Lateral Perception and Visual Memory with the tests listed

above. This predictor had a correlation of ,205 with driving, and .12A

with gunnery performance.

Predictions of Gunnery Criterion Perfoj^ianco.

ASVAB Results. Two ASVAB variables were chosen: Mechanical Comprehension and Classification Inventory - Conbat Scale. These two tests yielded

a multiple R of .S().>, F = 4. TS, p = .011. These results arc shown in

the summary table in Table S.

ASVAB Plus ARI Variable Results. The best two ASVAB variables,

Mechanical Comprehension and Classification Inventory - Combat Scale were

forced in this forward stepwise multiple regression analysis, with all

other ASVAB and all ARI variables entering afterwards. Four additional

variables were chosen, two ASVAB variables and two ARI variables.

These were Mathematical Knowledge, Electronics Information, lateral Perception,

and Visual Recognition. They yielded a nmltiple R of .4Si), F = 4.01,

p .001. These results are shown in the summary table in 'Table 6,

ASVAB, ARI, and OSUT Variable Results. When the best six ASVAB

and ARI variables, listed above, were forced first into this analysis,

only one OSUT measure was chosen: Midcycle contunications. The multiple

R = .496, F = 4.139, p .001.

20
Table 4

VARIABLES WITH SIGNIFICANT POSITIVE (1-TAIL P <.05) CORRELATIONS WITH

DRIVING PERFORMANCE

Numerical Operations

Arithmetic Reasoning

Electronics Information

Automotive Information

Classification Inventory

Lateral Perception

Visual Memory

.45 Cal Pistol

Electronics Scale

.17

.21

.18

.34

.26

.29

.17

.18

!

21
4>Oco2t

10 -^ o o

55;

t

§

)—1

a: U&i>I

o

PH

a.h

<u *->e

•H>

Ul 00

Bi IN CTl 00

f) r-H

«

00 ' 0) -^

U.

1

t

O

pH fN ^H « (M IN

U

H

••

4-* r^ to

t-n

a.

I

ItMC«eS £

5.2 O -rt

•H <M C -H n 1/1

22
toi

5i

i iau&

co2D8

^

-H Ifl 10 <S pH

-Hoooo

ooooo

»t to ui fO oo

1/1 1^ rt vOo

t^ in to -"o

•9-^ "T Tf^

1-, (Jl vD -H IN r;

^-tO 00 00o

r4 PHMo^O

3

COI

h- to fftW "-^ O»

TfO U1 CTl "O "I

<N to to to -t Tf

so ooM o> o> in

LO PH f- -H ^0 -H

tO (Nl PH PH (N <N

rsi CT. CT>

s

to (N r^ oo NO oi ii

00 PH 00 UO lO PH

^JO PHO tO« CJ

t-- *r i-~tt "N

4-> 1

c >, o u H o C C ü o X > P 3

•o S- PH

0) Cu H E

d

B

OO

4-»

U -H

d 4-1

cu PH

A

nO

V

U -H

pH

5 <4H

X)

C 'H rt rt « H Ä l« h U rt

4) PH

>

ZU

co

00V

0

0

t fc

•H^

^&.<=2^C

c (U^"

0MW i^

üSU"

rt> CU .H -rt

PH äl « 0

PH CDE^

iBi ti

2 313

23
Predictor Variables with Significant Zero Order Correlations.

Six ASVAB, ARI, or OSUT variables had significant positive (1 tall,

p < .05) correlations with the gunnery criterion. These are shown In

Table 7. The unit weighted model provided a predictor comprised of

ASVAB-only tests Including Word Knowledge, Mathematics Knowledge, and

Mechanical Comprehension. This composite had a correlation of .291 with

gunnery and .180 with driving performance. The unit weighted model with

all significant paper and pencil variables Included Visual Recognition,

Visual Memory, and Object Completion with the tests listed above. This

predictor had a correlation of .328 with gunnery, and .150 with driving.

Personal Preference. Although Personal Preference was never

chosen as a variable in the previous analyses, it was possible that the

interaction of preference with variable value would relate to the

criterion variables. To evaluate this possibility preference interaction

values were computed for all ARI, ASVAB, and OSUT variables by multiplying

their variable scores by *1, if they indicated a preference for gunnery,

and -1 if they indicated a preference for driving. A standard forward

stepwise multiple regression analysis was run, with the best ASVAB

and ARI variables forced first into the analysis.

1. Driver criterion variable. The best four ASVAB and ARI

variables forced into the analysis were Automotive Information, Classification Inventory - Electronics Scale, Classification Inventory -

Attentiveness Scale, and Lateral Perception. No preference interaction

terms added to these four.

2. Gunnery Criterion variable. The best six ASVAB and ARI

variables forced into the analysis were Mathematics Knowledge, Visual

I

f.

24
Table 7

VARIABLES WITH SIGNIFICANT POSITIVE (1-TAIL p <.05) CORRELATIONS WITH

GUNNERY PERFORMANCE

Word Knowledge

Mathematics iCnowledge

Mechanical Comprehension

Visual Recognition

Visual Memory

Object Completion

.20

.18

.25

.21

.22

.21

25
Recognition, Classification Inventory - Combat Scale, Mechanical Comprehension, Lateral Perception, and Electronics Information, Two preference

Interaction terms entered the analysis. Numerical Operations (PNUMOPS).

and Arithmetic Reasoning (PARTHRS). The multiple R • .569, F - 5.2A,

p - .001. The results are shown In Table 8.

DISCUSSION

In this phase data was collected on ASVAB, ARI, and OSUT performance

variables as potential predictors of either OSUT driving or gunnery performance for trainees In one OSUT company. Multiple regression analyses

were conducted first with ASVAB predictors, the most readily available

for prediction purposes. Next, analyses were done with ASVAB plus ARI

paper and pencil tests as the next most accessible information for prediction purposes, and then with ASVAB, plus ARI, plus OSUT variables, as least

easily acquired data for prediction purposes. Finally, for each criterion,

a unit weighted predictor was developed by summing the standardized scores

for variables which had a positive correlation with the criterion. This

was do:)« with ASVAB variables only, and with ASVAB plus ARI variables.

The results indicated an apparently acceptable level of driver performance prediction using a regression-based combination of six ASVAB variables.

In the sample studied these six accounted for approximately 28% of variance

in driver performance. A relationship of that magnitude would be quite useful for prediction purposes, if repllcable. Neither the addition of ARI or

OSUT measures to ASVAB provided an increase in prediction. Thus, from this

sample, it would seem that ASVAB scores alone may be used as predictors of

driver performance. Results with the unit weighted composite followed this

pattern, with better prediction from ASVAB alone than ASVAF. plus ARI tests.

26
iloCuc

-JOo

E|

a. —N

»H

«JUa

a.

w r-~ <o O Kl K) O (Ji (N

du -

4-1c

LU

Bl

•Hu>

Bu>_^

^§e

O -HO

4) ij 01 -H w c F ä • K « 1 -H O C f o b » .H ä >1 -H ,0 o w B.*i "g c .H c g o- c ^ e o o i) '

-l

«o *->HÄ

UU« rt«"

•H« <j e« a. -^

-I Da -HO£

C8 "•^ .H rtpW t/i

e rH 'Hcn ^o. cc

i«w1E ttB ?"

X3«x«"2

^

*Jm nju *J a>5 Qi

!« .M^ 0) c« -< St<

S> usJ wo.

a

27
Gunnery results indicated only a moderate relationship between ASVAB

scores alone and the gunnery measure. With the multiple regression techniques the addition of ARI paper-and-pencil test scores to ASVAB markedly

improved the degree of prediction, accounting for 21% of the variation in

gunnery scores. The addition of OSUT measures did nothing to improve the

level of prediction. Thus, for this sample it would appear that ASVAB

alone is insufficient to predict gunnery performance, but that ASVAB plus

ARI measures provide an acceptable level of prediction. Results with the

unit weighted composites followed the same pattern, with ASVAB plus ARI

variables providing slightly better prediction than ASVAB variables only.

The finding of Phase I results of the research must be interpreted

with caution because i iey are not replicates of results from earlier OSUT

studies. Only with the gunnery findings for ARI paper-and-pencil tests

did we have an opportunity to see whether the findings for Lateral Perception and Visual Recognition tests are supported by the research

conducted previously by Greenstein and Hughes (1976). In that research no

relationship was found for Lateral Perception, and a small negative relationship, opposite the direction noted with this research, was found for

Visual Recognition.

The following research, reported in Phase II, represented an effort

to determine whether the results of Phase I could be replicated with a

sample of three OSUT companies.

'

28
PHASE II

Phase II was in most respects a replication of Phase I using

three OSUT companies. The purpose was to determine whether the

promising results from the single OSUT company observed in Phase I

would recur in a second, larger sample. If so, good predictors would

be available for assignment of personnel to driver or gunner/loader

training in Armor OSUT as per TFMG recommendations.

METHOD

Research Participants.

Research participants were trainees in three OSUT companies

beginning training in May 1977 and completing training in July 1977.

Because of the relatively small size of the OSUT companies, and relative

incompleteness of the data available, 142 trainee data sets were

available for driver criterion analysis, and 112 trainee data sets

were available for gunnery criterion analysis. Ml trainees also

participated in a concurrent tryout of new night driving exercises

conducted by the Armor Center.

Instruments and Criterion Variables.

The same ASVAB, ARI and OSUT variables used in Phase I were used

again in this phase of the research. Criterion variables were similar

to those used in Phase I. The Ph;«se II course, however, gave greater

emphasis to off-road driving skills. Again, a driving course was used

and trainees were evaluated on their cross-country driving performance

by their tank commanders. Trainees were scored "GO" or "NO-GO" on a

number of driving performance measures, and then provided with an

29
overall Jrivinn rating. A checklist showing the types of behaviors

sampled is provided in Appendix F.

Gunnery performance was evaluated by collecting Tank Table VI

(Modified) hit/miss data for all trainees. The Table VI (M) used in

Phase II differed from that in Phase I, in that there were more

moving targets, more targets overall, and longer ranges. Performance

on nine standardized engagements was recorded by NCOa assigned to

a scoring detail like that used in Phase I. A sample scoresheet,

showing all engagement types and ranges is shown in Appendix ("•.

Procedure.

ASVAB scores were collected by Brigade representatives from the

Reception Station records. ARI paper-and-pencil tests were administered

and scored by Brigade personnel. OSUT racisures were obtained by

Brigade representatives during the course of normal OSU'I training.

The driver criterion measures were scored by Brigade Tank Commanders

on the driving course. Gunnery measures were collected by HE NGOs

assigned to scoring platforms equipped with BG scopes and tank-toplatform intercom equipment. Hie NGOs were BGT drill sergeants at

the time of the study, but all had prior experience as tank commanders

in at least one gunnery season.

To provide an indication of scoring reliability a senior 111; NGO

assigned to ARI (and who had served as a gunnery scorer in Phase I) used

binoculars to independently score several individuals along with each

of the members of the scoring team. Scores obtained by the scoring

team were correlated with those obtained by the senior NGO to estimate

inter-rater reliability.

30

.
tmmmmmm** '

|

>"'

|n

RliSULTS

Data Handling.

All ASVAB and AR1 and OSUT data was handled as in Phase I. Criterion

data, however, was handled differently. Driving checklist scores were

negatively skewed and reflected substantial company differences.

Unfortunately, evaluator identification was not available so evaluator

differences are unknown. The negative hypergcometric distribution was

fit to the data of each company to remove company differences and

normalize distributions.

The means and standard deviations of each company were used to

estimate parameters of the negative hypergeometrie distribution (Lord

and Novick, 1970). For each company, chl-square goodness of fit tests

were not significant as shown In Table 9. Estimates of the percentlles

corresponding to the scores In each company were obtained from the fitted

distribution and ujed to assign standardized scores cotrespondlng to the

centlies of a normal distribution with v 500, a - 100.

Driving rating score distributions were not skewed but again reflected

company differences. Driver ratings were standardized by company, therefore. Into "T" scores (having a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10).

Finally, a driver composite standard score was completed by multiplying driver rating standard score by 10, adding the product to the driver

checklist standard score (which had a mean of 500 and a standard deviation

of 100), and dividing the sum by two. This driver composite standard score

was the driver criterion used In analyses of driver performance.

31
\

Table 9

TESTS ÜF GOODNESS OF FIT TO HYPERGEOMETRIC DISTRIBUTIONS

IMIASI; II

Company

Driver Checklist

df x

2

Table VI Hits

df x

2

A

B

C

5 1.12 8 8.77

6 5.89 8 10,72

6 4.76 7 6.70

Scorer

Table VI Hits

df x

2.19

3.86

10.17

5.54

19.16

* p <.05

32
Gunnery scores were derived from nuaber-of-hlte date on 15 rounds

fired on Table VI (mod). Data was omitted for one moving target round

(engagement 1, battleslght, 700m) that had a consistent negative relationship with other rounds. The coefficients presented in Table 10

Indicate that the hit data Is moderately reliable, whether Interrater

or Internal consistency forms of reliability are examined. The splithalf coefficients suggest that unit and scorer variance does not substantially Inflate the overall reliability estimates, since the

coefficients within units and scores are not much lower than the value

based on the whole sample.

Hlr data was processed In two ways. Standardized scores were computed

to remove company and scorer differences, yielding "T" scores (with mean

50 and standard deviation 10). Due to the positively skewed distribution

of the number-of-hlts data the Lord and Novlck negative hypergeometrlc

transformation technique was also used.

In the latter case, parameters of the negative hypergeometrics

were estimated from the marginal weighted means of the two-way company x

grader table, and by assuming that the variances of the distributions were

proportional to the means. The constant of proportionality was estimated

2

from the regression of a on M, assuming the regression line passed

through the origin. Thus, only 9 parameters were estimated to fit 15

distributions. Goodness of fit tests were nonsignificant, except for one

scorer, as indicated by the chl-square tests shown in Table 9. For

Scorer 5, the number of zero scores exceeded expectation. Since one

deviant cell out of forty is not Improbable, the overall goodnsos of tit

was judged adequate for the purpose of transformation. The resulting

standardized and transformed scores were very highly intercorrelated

(r - .93). Transformed scores were used as the gunnery criterion for

all analyses reported in the results section.

33
Table 10

RKLIABILITY OF MAIN GUN HITS - PHASE II

xx

Interrater

Cronbach Alpha

Guttman Split-Half

Guttman Split-Half by Unit

Unit 1

Unit 2

Unit 3

Guttman Split-Half by Scorer

Scorer 1

Scorer 2

Scorer 3

Scorer 4

Scorer 5

744 34

573 249

738 249

733 82

786 71

676 96

637 46

637 41

750 54

543 55

865 53

34
Correlations between the gunnery and driving criteria are presented

in Table 11. Ml of the correlations were very small, and none were

statistically signif'.cant. These findings indicate that gunnery and

driving performance are entirely unrelated, in agreement with the

findings of previous studies.

Data Analyses.

Predictor and criterion variable means, standard deviations, and

inte.correlations were computed separately for the 142 trainees included

in the driver analyses, and the 112 men in the gunnery analyses. They

are shown in Appendix H.

Regression analyses were conducted as in Phase 1. Standard stepwise multiple regression analyses were utilized with F-to-enter corresponding to p - .10 (F 2.78) and tolerance - .10 in all analyses. As

in Phase I ASVAB variables were analyzed alone first, then with ARI

variables, and last with ARI and OSUT variables. Because of the very few

variables having significant correlations with criterion variables, no

unit weighted composites were evaluated.

Driving Criterion Results. The analysis of ASVAB variables yielded

only one test--Automotive Information, r = .188, F = 5.128, p = .025.

The addition of either ARI or ARI plus OSUT variables failed to indicate

any further tests as predictors of driving performance. No other

ARI, ASVAB, or OSUT variables were significantly correlated with

performance.

Gunnery Criterion Results. The analyses of the ASVAB variables

indicated only one test, Attention to Detail, as a predictor of gunnery

performance, r = .264, F 8.223, p = .005. When ARI variables were

added only Simulated Zeroing was added to Attention to Detail, yielding

35
Table 11

CORRELATIONS AMONG CRITERION SCORES

Driving Scores

Transformed Checklist

Standardized Rating

Composite

n - 185

Gunnery Scores

Transformed Standardized

005 .009

024 .049

016 .032

• •

36
an R » .352, F - 7.70, p » .001 (r » .202, p<,Ql). These results are

shown in Table 12. The addition of OSUT measures did not add any predictor variables. No other ASVAB, ARI, or OSUT variables were significantly correlated with performance.

37
I-oI

a:

atK

Q.

•J%0

•rt

m^

<Moo

•H

oo

ä

•HW

2

a: I»—i

o: D>

a:

UJ^: s>

a:33

-3

a.<

u.3Ua

K1 00 ^ <N

>oO

Ia> I>

oo

r^ to

to ^Jto t-^ d vo

8,

LOa

to

ii U

es oc

<->C

Q

g

O 4> H *J

*J (4 C iN Si < W

38
DISCUSSION

The results of the Phase II analyses were not nearly so encouraging

as thoso from Phanp I, Particularly distressing were driver results.

The Phase I results indicated a combination of five potentially predictive variables from tht ASVAB and ARI measures, and a total of eight

variables significantly correlated with performance. In Phase II, however, only Automotive Information, the first variable selected in Phase I,

was chosen. While this should suggest the robustness of that variable it

also poses the question of lack of correspondence between the two

analyses. The most obvious answer is that in the Phase I driver criterion rater variance was removed, because the driver checklist scores

were standardized using a mean and standard deviation computed separately

for each rater. In the Phase II analyses, however, the rater's Identity

was unknown, so the scores could not be standardized separately. Thus,

in part the analyses found the best possible predictor of trainee performance, plus rater bias, given the data provided. Of course, it is

unlikely that it would be possible to predict rater bias from knowledge of

trainee aptitude measures, so random error was inflated by rater bias.

With gunnery measures two variables were chosen: Attention to Detail

from ASVAB, and Simulated Zeroing from the ARI variables. These accounted

for a modest (12%) amount of the gunnery performance variance in the

sample analyzed. Neither of these variables, however, was among those

in the Phase I analyses identified in the multiple regression equation,

or among the variables in Phase I which were significantly correlated with

gunnery performance.

39
In the case of gunnery, no easily-observed major discrepency exists

between the Phase I and T'hasc II procedures or criterion data, although

there were some differences in the Table VI procedure used in Phase II.

The Phase II Table V! was more heavily weighted with longer range

targets, and moving target.» because it was judged desirable to weight

the selection more heavily in the direction of abilities required to

handle more difficult targets. However, this difference is a matter

of degree, and should not have resulted in a total lack of correspondence

between the two phases.

An investigation of the conduct of Phases I and II suggests that

Phase II was not a replication of Phase I. Phase II was intended to

be a replicate of Phase I but resources were not available at ARI-Pt Knox

when the Armor Center presented the troop units for participation.

Consequently, the Armor Center collected Phase II data. In addition,

participation in night driving, concomitant with gunnery training, may

have indirectly affected the prediction of gunnery scores. The driver

training required rearrangement of normal gunnery training schedules

and some loss of training time. Also, adverse effects on the alertness

of both instructors and trainees were observed in gunnery classes.

Consequently, enough is known about the conduct of Phase II to suggest

that the difference in results from Phase I is a direct consequence

of a difference in research conditions. Phases I and II were similar

only on the surface.

40
PHASE III

Phase III, unlike Phase I and II, dealt with armor crewmen in TOE

units, and focusscd on gunnery alone rather than both driving and

gunnery. The intent of the research was twofold. The first intent was to determine to what extent tests given by ARI to OSUT trainees in Phase I

and II were predictive of the performance of armor crewmen in TOP

units. Because of limited driving measurement opportunities only

gunnery performance was evaluated. The second intent was to determine

to what extent previous research relating armor crewmen test and

gunnery performance (P.aton, 1978 ) woald be supported by data from a

substantially larger sample. Most notable of Eaton's findings was a

strong (r +.49, p< .01, 2-tailed) relationsh.o between tank commander's

Object Completion test scores and precision gunnery hits on stationary

targets. Another relationship of interest for tank commanders was that

between precision gunnery hits on stationary targets and Patterns and

Mechanical Abilities tests(r's = +.30 and +.31, respectively, pi.10).

While no relationships with hits were found for gunners, their Attentionto-Detail and Lateral Perception test scores were significantly correlated

with opening time on battlesight engagements against stationary targets

(r's -.34 and +.34, respectively, p's <. .05, 2-tailed).

METHOD

Research Participants.

Research participants were gunners and tank commanders in five M60A1

battalions in a USAREUR armor division. Of the approximately 250 crewmen in each

position who were potentially available, complete data sets were available

41
for 159-211, depending upon the analysis required. Data were collected

between May and September 1977.

Instruments and Criterion Variables.

Predictor variables were similar to the AR1 variables utilized in

Phases I and II. The only additions were ARI PT 3129, Mechanical

Abilities; ARI PT 4489, Attention to Detail (similar to the ASVAB

Attention to Detail); and ARI PT 2788, Patterns. There were no deletions.

The three additional instruments were described by Hughes (1976) as

follows:

Mechanical Abilities (PT 3129). This 50-item test is a measure of

knowledge about general mechanics (Part 1-30 items) and tool function

(Part 11-20 items). The statements about general mechanics are for the

most part information-type items about automotive and other mechanical

objects. In Part II, pictures and tools are presented and the examinee

identifies their use.

Attention to Detail (PT 4489). This is a 60-item four minute hand

scored perceptual speed test of the "C-Cancellation" type. The examinee

is required to count the C's in a row of O's.

Patterns (PT 2788(R)). The examinee is required to reproduce on

an answer sheet a line pattern which conforms to a pattern presented in

a different part of the answt/ sheet.

Most crewman had entered the Army i.iore than two years prior

to the initiation of the research, a time when the ASVAB was not given.

Consequently, ASVAB scores were not available for use as predictor

variables. Futher, due to resource restraints, collection of job sample

or simulator data was not possible.

42
I

I

t!ritorion variaMos wore basoil on porrormaiu-o on TahloVIII,

the Tank Oow Qual ifictt ion (lourso, at ('rafrnwolir, (icrmany. Tal'lo \'lll

i-onsistoii of two phases- »lay und ninht . During both tho »lay ami

niRht phases there were four multiple tar^et eiiKaKements as shown in

Table 13. Gunnery criterion measures are ileseriheil in detail in the

results sect ion.

Procedure.

Crewmen wore first administered the AUI predictor instruments,

then tracked to ("irafenwoehr during their normal gunnery (Qualification

filing of Table VIII, and their Table VIII scores obtained. The pre

dictor instruments were administered by an AIM team to guimera and tank

commanders in their home battalion classrooms. This testing occurred

approximately two months prior to 'Table VIII at drafenwoehr. Because

of relatively high crew turbulence in this two-month period, make-up

tostiiiR was conducted It Gl 'fenwoehr in unused mess halls or offices.

Criterion data collected on Table VIII were opening time on etch

engagement and hit/miss data for each main gun round. To help Insure

completeness and accuracy of Table Vlll hit and time data three sources

were used, first was data taken from the records maintained i<v each

battalion. 'These were obtained at (Irafenwoehr during the battalion

firing. Second was data collected by a member of a data collection

team during the tank crew's debriefing conducted after Table Vlll.

Data collection team members were enlisted men detailed by the battalion

J.S
Table 13

TABLE VIII TANK CRllW QUALIFICATION COURSE - PHASE III

DAY BNGAGEHBNT WLAPONS SYSTKM TARGET

.50 cal machinegun

Coax machinegun

Main gun

Main gun

Main gun

.50 cal

Main gun

Main gun

Main gun

Stationary »RDM

Stationary troops

Moving tank

Stationary tank

Stationary tank

Stationary tank

BRDM

Stationary tank

Stationary tank

Stationary tank

NIGHT

l-NGAGliMIiNT WLAPÜNS SYSTEM TARGET

Main gun (range card)

Main gun (range card)

.50 cal machinegun

Coax machinegun

Main gun

Main gun

Stationary tank

Stationary tank

Stationary BRDM

Stationary troops

Moving tank

Stationary tank

44
to assist ARI representatives in data collection. A data collection

team member was present during each debriefing to acquire immediate

hit/coverage/time data from the scorer (usually a platoon leader)

and obtain answers to any questions about the conduct of

tho Table (misfires, targets which did not "pop-up", etc.)- The

third source was a tape-recording of each Table VIII run. The tape

recordings included crew intercom communication, firing-tank to controltank communication, and tower-to-tank communication. To make the

recordings a data collection team member connected a cassette recorder

to the firing tank's audio-frequency amplifier (AM 1780/VRC). Recordings

were used to verify time measurements, answer questions about any unusual

circumstances such as misfires, nonappearance of targets, etc., and to

resolve any discrepancies between data collected in debriefings and data

taken from battalion score sheets.

RESULTS

Data Handling - Predictor Variables.

All ARI predictor tests were scored as in Phases I and II and

tabulated separately for gunners and tank commanders. Means and

standard deviations of predictor variables are shown in Appendix I

for gunners and for tank commanders. Also provided in Appendix I are

intercorrelation matrices for gunner predictor variables and for tank

commander predictor variables.

Because predictor tests were given to some crewmen at their home

station, and to others at Grafenwoehr, the possibility existed that

significant differences in test scores may have occurred due to different

45
mmm

testing conditions. Each of the ten tests for gunners and tank commanders

were evaluated separately using t-tests. Because of the large number of

t-tests conducted, and the large df (197-209), an alpha-level of .01 was

chosen. There were no significant differences between home station and

Grafenwoehr scores on any of the predictor tests for gunners and tank

commanders (all t <2.39, all p ^.01).

Data Handling - Criterion Variables.

Gunnery hit/miss, and opening time raw scores were

tabulated for each tank and cross-checked to insure accuracy by using

battalion scoresheets, debriefing scoresheets, and the tape recordings.

From these the following summary variables were computed for each tank:

Summary Variable

1. Mean main gun opening time - day.

2. Mean main gun opening time - night.

3. Mean main gun opening time - day and night.

4. Total first round main gun hits - day.

5. Total first round main gun hits - night.

6. Total first round main gun hits - day and night.

7. Total main gun targets destroyed - day.

8. Total main gun targets destroyed - night.

9. Total main gun targets destroyed - day and night.

Because Table VIII gunnery was conducted by each of the five battalions

according to slightly different procedures the possibility existed that

46
battalions would exhibit significant differences on the summary gunnery

variables above, necessitating use of standardized rather than summary

gunnery variables in ensuing analyses. Accordingly, nine ANOVAs were

conducted to determine whether significant between-battallon differences

existed. Again an alpha-level of .01 was chosen. Six of the nine

analyses (variables 1-4, 6, and 7) yielded significant results. Because

of the between battalion differences, intercorrelation matrices for the

nine summary variables were computed overall, and separately by battalion

for use in choosing final gunnery criteria. These are provided in

Appendix J.

The intercorrelatlons indicated that the relationship between day

and night performance was rather weak for each measure. Day and night

performance was significantly correlated for opening tine (r - 261,

p - .001) and total targets destroyed (r - .197, p - .002) and not for

first round hits (r - .070, p » .158) but the correlations were not large

in any case. Since day and night gunnery are considered to be equally

important from an operational standpoint, composite measures based on

both conditions were Judged to be the most valid Indicators of performance

despite their heterogeneity. Tuerefore, because of their overall importance, mean opening time (variable 3) and total main gun targets destroyed

(variable 9) were chosen as the bases for the gunnery criterion measures.

To eliminate between-battallon differences indicated by the ANOVAs,

standardized time and hit scores were computed for each tank in each

battalion. These were used as criteria for all subsequent analyses.

47
Predictor-Criterion Realtlonahlps.

Zero-order correlations were computed between each predictor variable and standardized hit and time measures for both tank commanders and

gunners. These correlations are shown In Table 14 (159 i <, 211,

depending on variables). None of the zero order correlations reached

statistical significance (all p>.10). Stepwlse multiple regression

analyses of predictor variables on criterion variables for both gunners

and tank commanders confirmed that there was no significant relation

between predictor and criterion variables.

Slmular results were obtained when the correlations were compjted

separately for day and night scores. Only very small correlations of

Lateral perception with TC Day opening time (r - -.174, p < .01) and

Gunner Day total targets destroyed (r - -.174, p < .01) were significant.

Neither of these correlations were consistent with previous results.

DISCUSSION

The purposes of this research were twofold. The first was to determine whether predictor-criterion relationships from OSUT trainees would

obtain with TOE crewmen. The second was to determine whether predictorcriterion relationships from Ft Carson research with TOE crewmen (Eaton,

1977) would obtain with a larger sample of USAREUR TOE crewmen.

The overall lack of significant relationships between gunner's predictor variables and main gun hits revealed with USAREUR TOE crewmen In

Phase III would tend to confirm the similar negative findings revealed

with Phase II, and further disconflrm the encouraging findings of Phase I.

'

48
Table 14

\

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PREDICTOR VARIABLES AND STANDARDIZED HIT AND

TIME MEASURES FOR TCs AND GRs

PHASE III

Predictor Variable

Criterion Variable

GRs TCs

Hits Time Hits Time

Simulated Zeroing .073 -.036 -.084 -.070

Visual Memory -.058 -.063 -.034 -.059

Speed of Perception -.043 + .004 + .073 -.054

Patterns + .009 -.007 + .048 + .015

Attention to Detail -.125 + .069 + .022 -.143

Object Completion -.041 -.118 + .072 + .019

Locations -.069 -.154 -.037 -.012

Mechanical Abilities + .067 -.144 + .023 + .082

Lateral Perception Span -.041 -.043 + .091 -.076

Visual Recognition + .009 -.010 + .061 -.080

all p > ,10

I 49
Gunner's hit results from USAREUR and Ft Carson are unpromising.

No relationships were obtained In the Ft Carson results, «ml the one significant correlation obtained In USAREUR Is too small to be useful.

It was somewhat surprising, however, that neither of the significant

Ft Carson relationships between the opening time criterion and Attention

to Detail (+.3A) or Lateral Perception (-.34) were confirmed. There was

no support to suggest that either of these relationships obtains under

the conditions of the USAREUR research.

Similarly, It was surprising that there was no support from the

USAREUR results for the Ft Carson tank commander findings. None of the

Ft Carson relationships between the main gun hit criterion and Object

Completion (+.49), Patterns (+.30) or Mechanical Abilities (+.31) received any confirmation.

It would seem that Phase III research provides no support to the

notion that tank gunnery performance may be predicted by the paper-andpencll aptitude tests selected for use In this research. Of course, many

objections could be leveled at the predictor variable collection methodology. The tests were administered in battalion classrooms, unused mess

halls, etc., rather than a test center. In addition, crewmen may not

have been motivated when taking the tests, they may not have understood

the Instructions, they may have been tired, etc. While any or all of

these post-hoc explanations may have some validity, it remains true that

the tests were given to a rather large sample of armor crewmen, from

five separate battalions, under relatively normal operating conditions.

Tests which were not sufficiently robust to prove useful in such environments would probably be of limited use for application in operational

units, regardless of their validity in pristine laboratory environments.

50
<

The same type of arguments could be addressed to the Table VIII

data collection methodology. No gun-cameras were available« counting holes

in targets was impossible with the many hard-targets at Grafenwoehr, etc.

Nevertheless, the best data collection methodology procedures available

were used, (intercom tapes, crew debriefings by scorer, and battalion

records). Although the day-to-night hit and time correlations were small,

this may be more indicative of different skill requirements rather than

measurement unreliability. Finally, Table VIII score, as collected by the

battalion (without the benefit of intercom tapes or crew debriefing records)

is the Army's stated standard for crew gunnery qualification. I would seem,

therefore, that criticisms of the gunnery data collection extend to the

operational situation as well.

In correlation research of the type conducted in Phase III, three primary factors can account for a failure to obtain significant predictorcriterion relationships. The first is inadequate predictor variable

measurement; the second Is Inadequate criterion variable measurement; and

the third Is negligible predictor-criterion relationships under the

circumstances, and In the environment, in which the data were collected.

It is apparent that the third alternative Is the most probable for accounting for the results obtained In Phase III.

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this research was to determine whether aptitude/

achievement measures thus far Identified could be used to predict performance of tank commanders, gunners, and drivers, and if so, to develop

appropriate prediction equations based on the aptitude measures.

1

51
The research was conducted in three phases. The first two phases were

conducted with armor trainees at Ft Knox, and dealt with the gunner and

driver positions. The third phase was conducted with armor crewmen In

operational armor battalions, and dealt with the tank commander and gunner

positions.

Measures of performance used as criteria were based on those aspects

of the driver and gunner duties considered by the Armor Center to be

critical requirements for combat effectiveness: off-road tactical driving

maneuvers and firing of the main gun. The research, therefore» did not

address the prediction of performance in routine operational procedures

and maintenance tasiis.

With armor trainees at Ft Knox a number of potentially useful predictor variables were Identified in Phase I. Only one, however.

Automotive Information from ASVAB, was validated for drivers in Phase II.

None of the tests identified in Phase I for gunner's performance prediction was validated in Phase II. Nevertheless, certain methodological

problems entered the Phase II research, so the failure to validate the

other tests did not necessarily indicate their lack of relationship to

performance. Consequently, the continuing need to make optimal assignments to gunner/loader or driver training may best be addressed by

continued research on the paper-and-pencil measures as well as the

exploration of other techniques such as Job sample performance measurement.

The best paper-and-pencil test candidates for cross validation in

further research would be those which were shown in Tables 4 and 7 as

52
having significant positive relationships with performance. These tests

were:

For gunnery - Work Knowledge • ASVAB

Mathematics Knowledge - ASVAB

Mechanical Comprehension - ASVAB

Visual Recognition - ARI

Visual Memory - ARI

Object Completion - ARI

For driving - Numerical Operations - ASVAB

Arithmetic Reasoning - ASVAB

Electronics Information - ASVAB

Automotive Information - ASVAB

Classification Inventory - Electronics Scale -

ASVAB

Lateral Perception - ARI

Visual Memory - ARI

In cross validation research with these variables the unit-weight

composites developed In Phase I could be considered in addition to the

use of more standard multiple-regression procedures. Unit weight models

are based on sums of standardized variables, as with regression models.

But in unit weight models the value of 1 replaces each Beta weight. Only

the sign is determined from the data (from the zero-order correlation—

see Casclo, Valenzl, and Slbley, 1978; Einhorn and Hogart, 1975; and

Schmidt, 1977, for further discussion). Such procedures have been

suggested as substitutes for multiple regression techniques when one

deals with low subject to predictor ratios. Because low ratios are

normal in armor research with field performance criteria the unit weight

methods seem promising.

53
The situation with armor crewmen In operational amor unite appears

to be quite different. None of the favorable results from the initial

research conducted with one battalion (Eaton, 1978) were supported in

the followup with five battalions. Despite the statistical power offered

by the relatively large sample, few significant and no substantial or

consistent relations were observed. Consequently, there appears to be

little merit in pursuing research on these paper-and-pencil measures as

predictors of tank commander or gunner performance in armor units. Perhaps research efforts could best be directed toward the development and

empirical validation of job sample and simulator techniques based on

sound task analyses. Such Job sample/simulator research might also lead

to measures to supplement prediction of gunnery performance in OSUT.

i

i

F.,

54
REFURLNCES

Cascio, W. F., Valenzi, E. R., and Sibley, V. Validation and statistical

power: Implications for applied research. Journal of Applied Psychology,

1978, 63, 589-595.

DA Pamphlet 310-12. Index and description of Army training devices.

Headquarters, Department of the Army, 1976

Eaton, N. K. Predicting tank gunnery performance (Research Memorandum

78-6). Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute, February 1978.

Einhorn, H. J., and llogart, R. M. Unit weighting schemes for decision

making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 13^,

171-192.

Greenstein, R. B., and Hughes, R. G. The development of discriminators

for predicting success in Armor crew positions (Research Memorandum

77-27). Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute, December 1977.

Hughes, R. G. Development of predictors for tank gunner (Unpublished

manuscript). Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute (Ft Knox

Field Unit), 26 March 1976(a), Revised 21 May 1976(b).

Kaplan, H. Prediction of success in Army aviation training (Technical

Research Report 1142). Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute,

June 1965.

Lord, F. M. and Novick, M. R. Statistical Theories of Mental Test

Scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1968.

Schmidt, F. L. The relative efficiency of regression and simple unit

predictor weights in applied differential psychology. Educational

and Psychological Measurement, 1971, 31^, 699-714.

Thomas, J. A., and Sternberg, J. Construction of an experimental

selection battery for Armor systems (Research Memorandum 64-2).

Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute, April 1964.

Training Circular 17-12-6. Field mini-tank range complex. US Army

Armov School, Ft Knox, KY. (undated)

55
(

page

APPENDIX A. Tank Driver Test, XM34 Driving Simulator 59

B. Advanced Driving Checklist 61

C. JVdvanced Driving, Tank Commander's Rankings 63

D. Table VI Mod - Testing Only 65

E. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of

Phase I Variables 67

F. Advanced Driving Checklist - Terrain Driving 71

G. Table VI Mod Scoresheet - Phase II 73

H. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations

of Phase II Variables 75

I. Predictor Variable Means, Standard Deviations, and

Intercorrelations - Phase III 83

J. Intercorrelation Matrix Between Gunnery Summary

Variables Overall, and Each of the 5 Battalions

Separately 87

57
I

APPENDIX A

TANK DRIVtR TPST

XM34 Drlvini IfaMtMM

Train««

rtinc Procedures

-Hoprc"« brak« pedal

-Tranioission l«ver In P position

-Lock parking brakes

-Both drain valves closed

-Steering control in center position

-Fuel shut-off valve in "ON" position

-Fuel pump switch in "ON" position

D -All electrical equipment is "OFF"

§ -Master battery switch "ON", check for light

-Power plant warning light "ON"

-Check fuel, both tanks

D -Purge fuel lines

G -Depress accelerator petisl, press start for IS sec.

-Did not allow «ngine to surge

Q -Check generator blower »otor

n -Engine want up at 1000-1200 rpa

-Idle tank at 70O-7S0 rpa

n -Unlock brakes

n -Move transaission to L position

2. Lisht box

Bn -Service drive

Q -Blackout

D D -I"

J. Hand and Arm Signals

n n -Reverse

n -

Left

t

-Stop tank

4. Night Flashlight Signals

n D -Reverse

-

Left

Q Q -Forward

Stopping Procedures

-Stop tank

-Lock brakes

-Transaission lever in P position

-Kile tank at lOOO rrm

-Idle tank at 7OO-7S0 rpa

-Turn off electrical equipaent

-Fuel shut-off switch "UP"

-Master battery switch in "OFF" position

Ivaluator
APPENDIX B

ADVANCED DRIVING CHECKLIST

Trainee

_GÜ NO-m

Starting Procedures

1 -Depress brake pedal

-Transmission lever in P position

-Lock parking brakes

-Both drain valves closed

-Steering control in center position

-Fuel shut-off valve in "ON" position

-Fuel pump switch in "ON" position

-All electrical equipment is "OFF"

-Master battery switch "ON", check for light

-Power plant warning light "ON"

-Check fuel, both tanks

-Purge fuel lines

-Depress accelerator pedal, press start for IS sec.

-Did not allow engine to surge

] -Check generator blower motor

-Engine warm up at 1000-1200 rpm

-Idle tank at 700-7S0 rmp

•Unlock brakes

2. Operate Amplifier Audio Frequency (AM-1780)

-Took correct actions without help

3. Operate Intercom Control

Q Q -Took correct actions without help

4. Radio Check

D D -Took correct actions without help

S. As a Driver, Respond to Hand and Arm Signals

"1 [~ -Start engine

s

-Forward, left

2] ' -Forward, right

= L -Stop

-Neutral steer

3 D -Back-up, left

B8 -Back-up, right

-Stop

61
]

GO NO-GO

6. As a Ground Guide, Gavo Proper Hand and Arm Signals

as -Start engine

-forward, loft

8

a

ifD

-Forward, right

-Stop

-"Kewtral. .floor

-Back-up, loft '"" —

-Back-up, right

a a -Stop

7. Drive on a Paved Road

n n -Held a straight line

H B

-Shifted smoothly

-Shifted at proper rpm

D D -Braked smoothly

G 8

-Downshifted at proper rpm

-Made smooth turn

8. Drive Over Natural Terrain-

-Neutral steer

-Ditch crossing,

-Ditch crossing,

-Ditch crossing,

-Ditch crossing,

-Ditch crossing.

approached too fast, wrong gear,

descended too fast, bad angle

hit bottom too hard

stopped i-n bottom of ditch

climbed too slow, bad angle

bad angle

a

-Ditch crossing, pitched over too fast

Drive in Reverse Using TC Commands

8 -Responded quickly

-Took correct actions

10. Drive Buttoned Up

Q -Performance was satisfactory/unsatisfactory

11. Stop the Tank

BQ -Stopped smoothly

-Transmission lever in P position

Q D -Locked brakes

12. Stop the Engine

D -Reved engine to 1200 rpm

B-Idled down to proper rpm

-Cut fuel shut-off switch until engine died

D -Cut off master battery switch

Tank Commander

62

/
APPENDIX C

ADVANCED DRIVING

Tank Cowwidar'i Rankings

Rank tin traiiroo-driver you per»otiaily took through the Advanced Driving Course.

You may use the checklists you filled out to refresh your memory.

Trainee drivers should be ranked into four groups with an equal number of drivers

in each group (if possible). For example, if you had 16 trainee drivers, you would

rank 4 as the best drivers in the group, 4 «ho were above average for the group but

not tho best drivers, 4 who were below average for the group but not the poorest

drivers, and 4 who were the poorest drivers in the group. If it doesn't cone out

even, place the extra trainee drivers into one of the middle groups.

List the names of the trainee drivers in the table below.

The best drivers in the group

Above average for the group

but not the best drivers

Below average for the group

but not the poorest driven

The poorest drivers in the group

Tank Coasnander

63
APPENDIX D 

TABLE VI ~!OD - TEST! NG ONLY 

FIRE 

TARGET SIGHT ROUNDS ADJ AI INSTRUCTIONS CO~ft.ti\ND 

Tank 1. Fire command and l ay Gunner St at PRI 2 on t arget IIEAT 

# 

HEAT BOT 2. Index correc t range Tank 

1000 meters 3. Cease Fire a fter 2d r ound Fir-:! 

Tank 2 1. Fire command and lay Gunner 

2 Stat PRI SABOT BOT target 

SABOT 

# 2. 

I ndex correct range TAN K 

1400 meters 3. Cease fire aft er 2d round Fire 

Anti-tank 1. Fire command and l ay on Gunner 

3 Stat 3 Range target 

II Sec HEP 

Change 2. Index range plus 200 HEP 

7GO meters 

and meters Antit a

BOT 3. Sub sequent fire command 700 

4. Cease fire after 2d round Fire 

"' I ~loving 2 1. Fire command and lay Gunner '.11 T:mk PRI IIEAT BOT on tar~et HEAT 

4 # 2. Index correct range Moving 

700 meters 3. Cease fi

r e a fter 2d round Fire 

Anti-tank 1. Fire command and lay Gunner 

3 

Range on target HEP 

5 Sec 

HEP 

Change 2. Index range minus 

Anti-ta

and 200 meters 1400 

# I.I

OT 3. Sub

sequent fire command Fire 

1400 meters 4. Cease fire after 3d round 

Moving 1. Fire command 

and l ay 

Gunner 

6 Tank 2 on target SABOT 

# 

Sec 

SABOT BOT 2. Index correct range Moving 

1400 meters 3. Cease fire after 2d round Fire 
APPENDIX E

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND INTERCORKELATIONS OF PHASE I VARIABLES

1 I

Phase I Variable Codes, Descriptions, and Sources

Variable-Code- D&seription of Vari^blft^Saurcfl,.-^^^^^^-.--—-

GENINFO

NUMOPS

ATTDET

WORDKNOW

ARIREAS

SPACEPER

MATHKNOW

ELECINFO

MECHINFO

GENSCI

SHOPINFO

AUTOINFO

CICM

CICA

CICE

CICC

LATPER

VISREL

VISMEM

LOG

SPACEARI

SIMZERO

OBJGOMP

PERPRE1

M34

MIDMTN

MIDCOM

MIDWPN

PISTOL

REATIME

DVGCKL

TVI

MECHANICAL - ASVAB

ATTENTIVENESS - ASVAB

ELECTRONICS -ASVAB

COMBAT - ASVAB

GENERAL INFORMATION - ASVAB

NUMERICAL OPERATIONS - ASVAB

ATTENTION TO DETAIL - ASVAB

WORD KNOWLEDGE - ASVAB

ARITHMETIC REASONING - ASVAB

SPACE PERCEPTION - ASVAB

MATHEMATICAL KNOWLEDGE - ASVAB

ELECTRONICS INFORMATION - ASVAB

MECHANICAL COMPREHENSION - ASVAB

GENERAL SCIENCE - ASVAB

SHOP INFORMATION - ASVAB

AUTOMOTIVE INFORMATION - ASVAB

CLASSIFICATION INVENTORY:

CLASSIFICATION INVENTORY:

-CLASSIFICATION INVENTORYCLASSIFICATION INVENTORY:

LATERAL PERCEPTION - ARI

VISUAL RECOGNITION - ARI

VISUAL MEMORY - .RI

LOCATIONS - ARI

SPEED OF PERCEPTION

SIMULATED ZEROING -

OBJECT COMPLETION - ARI

PERSONAL PREFERENCE - ARI

M34 DRIVER TRAINER - OSUT

MID CYCLE MAINTENANCE - OSUT

MID CYCLE COMMUNICATIONS - OSUT

MID CYCLE WEAPONS - OSUT

.45 CAL PISTOL - OSUT

REACTION TIME - OSUT

DRIVING COURSE STANDARDIZED CHECKLIST

TANK GUNNERY STANDARDIZED TABLE VI HITS

'

- ARI

ARI

67
'

VA<UA3LE MEAN STANDARO OEV

GENINFO 9.15<>& 2.766*

NJ«13PS 26.1031 10.7563

ATTOET I'-».3093

—-i-—— ft Mm MI Ik A 'V«. —"

3.55*2

wORvKVOw ^Irv 0 8 25

ARIREAS 11.5773 3.5055

SPACEPE) 12.3722 3.1366

MATHKN04 9.6*95 3.7362

ELECHF3 17.7*23 *.1939

MECHHFJ 9.7526 3.9766

CENSCI 9.1959 3.6276

SHOPHF] 12.6701 *.5385

AUT0IMF3 10.8763 *.33e3

CIC1 12.2577 *.59*6

CICA 9.113* 2.8682

CICE 3.2633 *.2390

-CI-CC IS.3103 *.3601

LATPER 29.16*9 8.8290

VISRE: 25.9381 7.**82

VISME1 9.6082 *.251*

LOC 19.*12* 5.2693

SPACEARI 16.9278 6.8256

SMZtRD *1.2062 3.5851

OBJCDIP *8.1753 10.9668

PERSPiEl .*12* .*9*8

nik 19.979* 5.3391

HIDHTN 2.5670 .6276

MI3CQ1 *.7323 .6695

HI3WPM 5.*9*8 .7377

PISTOL 28.3093 3.6696

REATME *8.1031 *.8616

OVGCKl 19.6082 5.0157

TVI 19.*9*3 *.8651

^

68
ol

A OiAM.e HIo «M*!» en» N••:••« «

« <* tf* <• IA » i* o w e n o M » ft ii%l<» a m ^ o

m ^M M « *« e fw «M e m * « m e «M o'M e m o M

1 '

• ••••• •••••••• ••••••

> « (M ot M ^ «v • Al « M P4 mm e *N»

i«>«»«mo«o«oo»'«Mm

*•« HS

— !*• IA « M 4t ^

, «Mf^oMtftirmfMO»^ o « • » r» » o m earn

< *w o moMi^fwmMmK»« « « m mi* m *m m tr «B o

i

iAMi«tt>0<MiAmm»-4Mf,oc ««'-«ommM««-«

^ a •> if\ n ^ f»> o « «i» <w o -^ J> p» ^ yi n m M

r>«4 r^

P4M

•« «v

m

*iwvAi»««o*«M ir

«4

s

mom»m***4fMO«M

• *•••••••••

I I I

if* p*

m m

** o

O m

ft. IW K IL

5 »2 m P4 o • * c in (M o Ai nj «« « •«

« ^ WN «I« »<«•>«» ^ * « « » p« «

^M Aj * «i *v o-*»*»* ^ o o o •• r»

• • ••••••••••••

on

Ai mm mn tv&mus n» m **&

e »I» oiAAjr*^*o^o*^-

• ^•«-4Ai«<olmiAmo^>Ai

m^^rr-^otf-o^o^Off^m

»A tA Al o« ^i ^. O -^ -4 -4 — Al O O

• •#•••••••••••

•M e» »A » A. _

Al V\ 41 «I O»

M » « « M '

m IA m « • P4

et o P« *« « *4 • • • • .

Al »«

•4 O

m AI" ^ ~

«^««(V4>r-iAmm»tf\

tn M a * m iA ». »or-«*« •4««d}mtA!»A-»»«^0

«f» AI •• r» *« ^r m r* m iA p*

m ^ r» r» o *^

• • • i

I I

* Al tf% P> -*0

At «*» m « o

••IA Al *IA »

MAMIA Al «

• •••••

I

• • • • •

»•« K«

AI Aim n A. _

« e iA u\ o «

Al » Al O P* «

-« o AI o r> • •••••

« • A> m • <r

m m m M v

*r » » o a

m * m «o r- •

A* o A# AI m o

• •••••

« #« «4 r» ^ «

<# » IA ^ •# tA

_ •« O fV o •« o

• •* ••••••

« o o« «

• * •

» m «m «t

4» »A <N»A» ui

»Ow* «

no Ai.4 M

• • * • at

« « m «

« * m AI

O Al • P«

« m # *

^o«o • • • •

m « «

r» *4 P4 P4 • • • •

I I

o ni ** ^ m—i* m o> m t*'<* f* o m * • tr •A Al *« A« «^ Al r — Ji iAOii>rtn>««omA-MOmA> t - . <-» IA ii> m m ^ «

•* i iAiA^om^m^miA^*»-. A AiAtAmrtf^mo

mo o mie • « • AI ^|<# A> « » .. o,,* AI IA o o m « IA mr»

m m »4 m n < on o,n o-• r •*!«•• ^ #* o o rt m r» o

II i I

•» nl " 5

Kii4 «^

o ^ u u oo

Af U v *■■ «r

^U UI ui tu IU

& Ot W UM

^ VI vt u « V

--Oft -

U t_* ^ > > W *A *A

O ft • O ft

> U S

» o o

69
o«*o -• O O OX * t • • • • • •

it :

« p> p'm« » «o « a

I.

ON

IV (M lA » <-t A

«m «no f

O** O >M M O

IOIMO e

I

«•n»» ^

i£ü:s S

mr* ö tu

« mm u

— or» «

IA « iA IA A ^

t «lA * fM «VO

iA o »Am m r»

M — M\ « —

o M on — — • •«•••

— « st o <* r->

D wo m »4

» « m — « O Al p- M »« n i

I I I I I t

I OMi'iA m* <A

( p* m A^ M Al

> « m — «» »

j «» —mmrt

• o «4 o o n —

AIP* • P* *A »•

* *SIIA » »

P- lA IA O « IA

M Al ^ « M «

m*** moo O

t m «r o o p» o IAP- tA|A IA O

. « o a.

' t # W * «f.W

' j ui iu UJ a

*r ,»»«».

IA«|IA

Ai m iA

• • ••

I I w

I I u

4 mm |«

AIO O U

I I

OP* IA: *••

**<* B

•*P* A| ^

O — O M

• • • M

I,

P- • «A &

IA « « • "

rt -* — O

• • • • M

I I

AJ ^ r» m AI B

o o **i *! w

— r» o — a

« —o « « »

» —B *t + r* m

P« lA O* IA 4P IA I-

« r* » ^ * po — r> n o o a

• ••••• mm\

II I *•

4P M IK— rft O IA

o •« niA « o«

O A ^i P» « « M

O n—i—Al —trt *

I I

K W , *- ^- O

Bi CK a. KO»

1

70
i

APPENDIX P

ADVANCED DRIVING CHECKLIST - TERRAIN DRIVING

TC't please fill In each portion of checklist ('i-9) at driver conpletes tha

exercise. Then fill out last question (110) whan driver coaplatai course. It

li particularly laportant that you evaluate each drlvar accurately, based upon

his performance. These results will not affect tha drivers you are training

today, but will b« uittd to dettntM tt»-tTitai»»l ■■llffeMiaMilfaW

driver training In future OSUT cycles, beginning In 1977.

DRIVER NAME Co»pany_

1. Main gun engagement. Whan TC Instructs drlvar to find dafilada position and

Issues fire en—and does drlvar:

NO GO

find hull dafilada position

stop t'.ik 5«oothly

stop tank quickly

hold brakes to prevent tank froa isovlng

doesn't move tank until told to do so by TC

2. Moving coax engagement - troop silhouettes. When TC Issues flra coaaaand does drlvar:

NO GO

§

continue to drive forward

select smoothest course

maintain steady gun platform

drive at proper speed

I. Main gun engagement. When TC instructs drlvar to find defilade position and

Issues flra somaand does driver:

NO GO

a 'find hull defilade position

stop tank smoothly

stop tank quickly

hold brakes to prevent tank froa moving

doesn't move tank until told to do so by TC

4. Moving coax engagement - troop silhouettes. When TC Issues fire commando does driver:

GO

a

NO GO

continue to drive forward

select smoothest course

maintain steady gun platform

drive at proper speed

5. Ditch crossing. When crossing the ditch the driver:

NO GO

I 3

didn't approach to fast

did apply brakes smoothly

didn't approach at wrong angle

didn't descend too fast

didn't hit bottom too hard

didn't stop at bottom of ditch

didn't climb out too slowly

didn't climb out wrong angle

didn't climb over too fast

6. .Main gun engagement from hull defilade position,

firing position driver:

When TC issued command to enter

NO GO

O

§

entered position quickly

stopped smoothly

stopped in correct position

kept brakes applied during engagement

didn't move out until told to do ao by TC
In backing out of position driver:

GO NO GO

8 §

followed TC coaundt »»oothly ind confidently

followed TC coMands correctly (back right or loft, etc)

stopped siaoothly

7. Main gun engagement from road. When TC Issued "Driver Stop" end fire co

NO GO

and driver:

GO

a

«cijipBd7 tail*- on-ru«d ji»«/tIHy~-~~-'^^r

stopped tank on road quickly

kept brakes applied during engagement

didn't move out until told to do so by TC

Flank moving coax engagement.

GO NO GO

When TC issued fire coaund did driver:

B

c

ü

continue to drive forward

select smoothest course

maintain steady gun platform

drive at proper speed

Ditch crossing: When crossing the ditch the driver:

GO NO GO

didn't approach too fast

did apply brakes smoothly

didn't approach at wrong angle

didn't descend too fast

didn't hit bottom too hard

didn't stop at bottom of ditch

.didn't climb out too slowly

didn't climb out at wrong angle § § didn't pitch over too fast

10. Of all the trainee drivers you have seen, where would you rate this aan on a 7

point scale, based on his performance today? Circle one.

among

the

worst

much

below

average

below

average

4

average above

average

auch

above

average

among

the

best

TANK COMMANDER

signature

72

I
I

CoBpany_

Tank

APPENDIX G

TABLE VI ^^0D SCORESHEET PHASE II

CREM POSITION - OSUT

Table VI (Mod) Score Sheet

Pit

TC

Naae

Scorer

Engagement Command Round

<

"GUNNER" 1 2

0. Stationary, 1200a

(Zero Panel, Periscope)

HEAT,

ZERO PANEL

H M H M

1. Moving, 700*

(Flank Tank, Rear Track)

(Left to right)

(Periscope, Index 1100m)

BATTLESIGHT,

MOVING TANK

H M

2. Stationary, 830*

(Index 700m, BOT)

(6x6 Panel, Periscope)

BATTLESIGHT,

TANK

H M H M

3. Moving, S60m

(Flank Tank, Front Track)

(Right to Left)

(Telescope, 1100m line)

BATTLESIGHT,

MOVING TANK

H M

4. Stationary, 960m

(6x6 Panel, Telescope)

(Precision, Index 960m)

HEAT, TANK,

960 METERS

H M H M

S. Stationary, 1370m

(6x6 Panel, Telescope)

(1100N Range Line. BOT)

BATTLESIGHT,

TANK

H M H M

6. Moving, 1410m

(Flank Tank, Front Track)

(Right to left)

(Telescope, 1400m line)

HEAT,

MOVING TANK,

1400 METERS

H M H M

7. Stationary, 1370III

(6x6 Panel, Periscope)

(Precision, Index 1370)

HEAT,

TANK

H M H M

8. Moving, 1470m

(Flank Tank, Rear Track)

(Left to right)

(Periscope, Index 1470)

HEAT,

MOVING TANK

H M H M

"FIRE"

73
APPENDIX H f

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND INTERCORRELATIONS OF PHASE II VARIABLES

PHASE II VARIABLE CODES, DESCRIPTIONS, AND SOURCES

VariableCode Description of Variable-Source

GENINFO

NUMPOS

ATTDET

WORDKN

ARRSNG

SPACE

MATHKN

ELEINFO

MECHCOM

GENSCI

SHOPINFO

AUTOINFO

CIMECH

CIADMIN

CIELEC

CICMBT

LATPER

VISREC

VISMEM

LOC

SPEED

SIMZERO

OBJCOMP

PREF

MAI NT

COMMO

WPNS

PISTOL

RTAV

DVRT

DVRR

DVRC

TERCHER

TERRATE

GNRT

GNRS

ASVAB

- ASVAB

MECHANICAL - ASVAB

ATTENTIVENESS - ASVAB

ELECTRONICS - ASVAB

COMBAT - ASVAB

GENERAL INFORMAriON - ASVAB

NUMERICAL OPERATIONS - ASVAB

ATTENTION TO DETAIL - ASVAB

WORD KNOWLEDGE - ASVAB

ARITHMETIC REASONING - ASVAB

SPACE PERCEPTION - ASVAB

MATHEMATICAL KNOWLEDGE

ELECTRONICS INFORMATION

MECHANICAL COMPREHENSION - ASVAB

GENERAL SCIENCE - ASVAB

SHOP INFORMATION - ASVAB

AUTOMOTIVE INFORMATION - ASVAB

CLASSIFICATION INVENTORY:

CLASSIFICATION INVENTORY:

CLASSIFICATION INVENTORY:

CLASSIFICATION INVENTORY:

LATERAL PERCEPTION - ARI

VISUAL RECOGNITION - ARI

VISUAL MEMORY - ARI

LOCATIONS - ARI

SPEED OF PERCEPTION - ARI

SIMULATED ZEROING - ARI

OBJECT COMPLETION - ARI

PERSONAL PREFERENCE - ARI

MIDCYCLE MAINTENANCE - OSUT

MIDCYCLE COMMUNICATIONS - OSUT

MIDCYCLE WEAPONS - OSUT

,45 CAL PISTOL - OSUT

REACTION TIME AVERAGE - OSUT

STANDARDIZED DRIVER CHECKLIST SCORE - OSUT

STANDARD ZED DRIVER RATING SCORE - OSUT

DRIVER COMPOSITE STANDARD SCORE - OSUT

TACTICAL DRIVER CHECKLIST - NOT USED

TACTICAL DRIVER RATING - NOT USED

TANK GUNNERY TRANSFORMED TABLE VI SCORES

TANK GUNNERY STANDARDIZED TABLE VI SCOPES

>
DRIVER SAMPLE

VARIABLE NEAN STANDARD DEV

GENINFO

MUHDgS

ATTDET

VORDRN "

ARRSNC

SPACE'

MATHKN

ELE1WFD

MECHCOM

SHOPINFO

CIMECH

9.6*08

13.7617

12.6056

TZTTTTT

10.0493

itmt?

10.4225

2.9520

40,6556

3.6665

3.7473

3.501 /

4.1090

4.7592

3.5437

10.6901

13.1268

12.1479

12.3028

"9.6620-

8.0775

4.0021

5.2523

4.4162

4.0685

777156

4.3761

C1ADH rr

CIFLEC

CICHBT

LATPPR

VISREC

VISNEN

t-oc—

SPEED

Tr.2324

30.8380

2/.4859

9.6479

4.8999

10.0366

—STTTTT

4.5929

6.946Y

6.8578

-s-mmtJOBJCOMP

nttf

NAINT

-nn^or

21.8169

6.8028

37.1901

4.5088

5.4629

.6356

.3941

.7612

.5757

1.6338

2.8521

- 4.3873

4.7183

- I«»MO

44.3697

CDHHO

WPNS

MSTOL

RTAV

-OYTT

DVRR

491.4085

49.3338

»92.3732

82.7746

—4.2676

5.4362

9/./iU6

10.1968

TERCHEK

93.7380

12.3859

1.1039

76
CUNNI:R .vXMI'l.l

VARIAHL^

GENINFtl

NUMOPb

ATTDIT

UOKDKN

ARRSNo

SPACb

MATHKN

bLF INFU

MECHCUM

&ENSCI

S<»|'P1NF 1

i.iT i»Nfil

r. Auen«

CItLEC

LATPER

VISRtC

VISMbM

LUC

SPLED

UBJCUMP

PREF

MAINT

CUMHu

WPNS

pismi

RTAV

&NRT

ONRf.

MEAN

9,7üS<.

i7.l9Ub

19.P1^5

12.4107

12.4107

1U.0268

1«.6<.29

10.S268

10.5»0<i

12.72 32

11.H929

12.3214

9.8393

8.2143

lfl.<.2b6

31.321<>

27.H<.a2

lO.tVh«

2J.8b39

22.<.1U7

6.5982

37.16W6

1.6U71

^.8661

« .7<!32

?.6U71

<«<i.4((21

SÜb.4b5«i

50.7918

STANÜARD JEV

3.0628

10.7336

3.9278

6.2360

3.HÜÜi

3.6627

<..2372

c

i.i>:)ü6

3.7343

4.0795

5.3376

4.5J90

4.1486

2.7C62

4.<.366

4.9241

9.606 9

7.i,800

4.6099

6.'.'.97

6 . (> 44 8

<..59<,3

5.o20'J

.675^

.3912

.7678

.5569

.6625

5.4611

10'..6>*70

9.7<"3'»

77
' « '

i

r «to i ri1

18

BSBSPCB

;

ION0>t>tfl»n>OIM «ismEoitMiroi

*I«KI» — H O

' la « po* f- i

• j- o D »J Ri <M ij

! I

*Mmo-*Nooooopop

*l~[

E

fM ^t m b

«V N tf\ M O #

AI fv in r i^ r-

— f- f' O fM O

-4 t«.* HOp

o (o «r »

o i*>

op o o

M M M »

I

"oft 3 O O

»•»or« r « » — o o

n n« «ft ^ » iv -O » f~ «D O

trma^Mo IN P- » « « « -P-

- »M Rm N • "j iv to o S> r- •-« oiaoi-i«p««o».

«t^fwMopopmr

or- f « « <

«» D |

SoHo •air •

0* o« »<

- « ma ft >

• o In « •• .

k W tf S IU *

>a pvt < J x

c >- j« «t 4 »-

>•- Pacik «

' -«UN r^ « «

' m M m M o

»o« lie*

l in

^ h- m # «

** * raw* ** m w r» * p-

^ « ^ IA •> «

n ^ tf m N •>

{Eis

< > «*• 0*N O >

K ! it

• x ^& p IU l I

Jiu «j X S *" • •

X 0 vt ^ u I /

M # m t« i/i I» f* pm

• p«< < »>

o p m A «^

i m M m P »

»fvP»i^O«*>lpO'«

n m « m n o i > o M m fi m

••ir»irpr*P — •" »4tf\«pn<ipvi^p^ »^»»«•Bpminp-pm

1 • M #

! i

Wll-K W K

IW p 1*1 UMi

-i*a f K

ui V *- v> wt — •» « 4- — V -1 > >

• R o

moo *

<n «»

•MNO •

111!

I ^ nip tfi i «f Sn

< 0 u% M m

. « ^ c -

i -. o o -.

:'

m p

• #» m l m M » I

rf o

m p n> Aim

m p «po

« ft •»Km

o pop« *!*nip *

N PWfi«

< t<nip —

M ^ « Ais

opo

-• ~m6o

IMu* S

I C ->IU —

• i ii i .

•• feet« p ni M •

!SS?2

• Pmp»

r-BiM*7

••popo

r-« r- « ^

^ ^ « <M IV

Mp O p O

I

IP

m *-

St it. o

.p.

IP *

»mi »tn l

t M«

>o<

>ni ö

i >r *•

<>o p

» H- > >r « *

. — »-»>: i 0- « p o <

Ii
I wmm

'O -<'0 W«4 O'O OlO O. UJ

I1

® i-v »o in vf ^ « r-

*»! _ o- m ^ ^ «> r- au*< « -»im «irg ^-^ *

IT in ""WKM 4f. ry Ml o V

eKM m!^ PWB O -* o

i <!•

« o

I

• o o 919 ^im ^

«too #ia4 #» oio* -

r- mi« nlrfs tnjo« <OI<M O

^ Or« *4 O O O O -* —

I III l|t I

tr -tio^f- or- o«o uy «

'f^OOiM-*—«OOOOOO 4W

I !

I— r«- » ^) CD o.« ^(^f^tno>|«4tA

fM ry IT, ^ o -»I« op o(ooo -^

i I

If. O » O lA ^

»

r

O Oif

> o c -^ o

9- a> «o o^ m «o

> U% i^ O <# N

O OOOOO

« fM> UJ

^ J- ^> J « O »M 4) O

^ fr» f* * m ». o x* ^

•MUN --U o>(M olo m

t l

M iA |m m-t^ -^

» OhT m• «

^ <« *o — m rsi

r^ »MUopr

«ow «

IT « «n J)

Q 'NJ U. r^

ft it Im «D

O »V( O OOOO^-tOOO—O-^

11»

« *• O in p- !«»»•**« ^wosf o« Mf>i»r-«

M » M <# |B r-

-mb ^ C o

3 m t« fM W rM

^ o p o In o

»*n • CDO »

* »n WN ^ i-i o

• mP'MM a

( — fr ^ IN* -,

tMAop o

OfnorhM»M^fM<olAm

I) > o o o o *-

• n* -N » *

' * < r- o

^o * ^

«MQOO

J

I Ui UJ uj

: «. a r |u

»»^ '^ vi *-» p — < — •- S

-1 > fc _!)«

I II

| I

-< OQ — QX

:-»ujt-xa:o«iÄococ

o.rw|Ba.Acaoo

4 UV o

f\ Iff

3 O

79

r

n «DM J ti «MO

o » p « » -» <•>

» m K « p iff n i KOMNIMPOp <"

n* i ! IN ';i' p

a> o « to M

> « N <r to ^

o o« « iff p m

3 »pop «

I I

0 »• in

« »j

||f£

z«
• 3

• I III«

a

o^««M«M^o^^«<^«o><o<^'«*-'nui a.

• •• X

I I I I I *

• ••••••.• •..*•••••.( iu

I I I I I o

• ••••••••••a UJ

I I III«

tA«iAMr^«aem«f^^m«^o>r>o»<iro*«ooM ik

*tAm*-4P400»***m^**«(norv»40*4000 iw

•••••••••••••••••*••••• -j

l i i I l tu

• •• •••••••• •••a «

II I I I I I X

••••••••••••• ••• a

I I I I I I I v>

o* « * ^mrymoo^omo*^—»no*-«o<-*-i««-»(_oo at

••• •• •••• • at ii i I 31

-• f- *» * »«iAiA»«fM«B«iA-4mfnfMmflor»or-«^iA-«

^«»^-«»f^r-Ai^^r'fcft^^or-rtHA — «* — «unoo« it «P4orsi^«*4rwf^m«ro>4)OP»tfN»a>^(n^«(«>MOtc« Q

<* **<* ^»n(M,j'^0*iO'>J'V-^r«*'MO'NOO'NjO-^^Cp at

• •••••••• •••••••«•• •••

,

* a

III I II s

i i i

s ox

• ***•• •••••••••••• ••••••••• z>

iA.r«tr-m.a«)««fntAf^M^>a>i^oO'S*4iAir^mo'^*OM^Phr^

,

*- 'M«O47<0iffMr^40tnm4p«^«rtAm«4^^rtr^iA4ootn^> x

i I l

Z)IL.

>

u. « —

2 X u. u. X

•« >-« o xu. a — x * x — yj t-CHJK

a. UJ * X ** * z uw—«OKuicuiujuj

o o o ^ *-» x — z^a aiuo.j&.a.«rx

a a.

at K ~i

o UJ o i- a a

3 - o or a « -i a/ujrs--- — « — — c

JE « » < ^ I UJ Kt*M«UUWU^»>.jwtitaa.Kus&ictAo

80
t<\i

fl

ll

I;

-#—** *N( ^O

O «lA* "Mm «*

••«

II*

o— rtjo^o^r» -»

........ a, I I I I O

p*oo*«)^r-oo»a

sr-f^^oO

1

«)«« at

•^«N^r-f-^o— »^

fvo »M ^10o r» <^-^r

liilt I vt

'M<MOO^M *4OOO tU

o.

II I I I «A

Al fV CtM o-^ooooo »->

•••o

III -4

«om^^r^^^o^rrt'^M« uj I I ' III »

r^o »*-—i-•'S*• »^ rgm k/\O P* Ci

IIII I >

o<o^»r»mm(niOtf\tA«r-^«

M <* 01 iAo »4oom in MOo^ •-

• •••••••••••••«

ll I -i

• «r«oom«»tAM«*4r-4a

AJ fM «0 ITo« «noo»mO« tA 4) H-

« ^r* -4 lAMP« tn» 1AM «UN»O 00

0'mfV9>oirmo*m(n«f>>>r

b

Oz

0o—ooooo ^-*—oooo <-»

I II I I I o

»'M^>(^ff»«nr-'N*o»>i—^.r-»o^ uj

wo

k

MtAO^m94>o'vtn«»«o -•

r»o .-•-*-*oo o-^-*oooooo u>

I IIlIll IIo

0«)n4u^9om«^rMoiM^o^a

^OOOOOOOOOMO^OOOO*

I IIII I I w

^—»» mt^^u^oor-njO^Cff *«

tAlA9»AOIAOfVlAr»P»»m»^^«w

-. *«-•oooooo^ooo^o ^-^Hox

1I I i I II I I I I I I w

—o t- acw JT atr _i

x uj (o IU uj UJ ouja *~oa

a -ir a.« r< iu*<4wu.zx«n»->»-t<n

MH

—<

HM

aa.Mttae«aa. —»-xx

•

5

«)o

^m

Mtf-

** Al

>

oo

<

••

11 Of

»» »A

« ff.« -1

^M ro

m^«

^

ooo *^

•••

11 aIA 0> At * O OD O C

AlO f* A(

u« ao »H *rt

Mo r>w

r

1 I

a.

«»O ID^

^ «. Al tt 00

n

r-« <«o Ai

X

M «• AlOOr

111

a

*-•

m aoG «-

« fO^O

r-* —«^

2

^

ooono

^ »-> »- tA

81
APPENDIX I

PREDICTOR VARIABLE MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND INTERCORRELATIONS

- PHASE III

83
Simulated Zeroing

Visual Memory

Speed of Perception

Patterns

Attention to Detail

Object Completion

Locations

Mechanical Abilities

Lateral Perception

Visual Recognition

211 42.29 3.38

211 9.23 4.08

211 19.60 6.28

211 90.43 14.59

211 39.58 9.36

211 72.28 11.47

208 19.74 5.96

201 35.07 7.34

202 30.06 6.31

203 30.52 5.91

Gunner's Predictor Tests

Test Mean

Standard

Deviation

Simulated Zeroing

Visual Memory

Speed of Perception

Patterns

Attention to Detail

Object Completion

Locations

Mechanical Abilities

Lateral Perception

Visual Recognition

209 42.29 3.23

208 8.60 4.34

208 18.66 6.61

207 87.36 20.48

208 38.68 8.01

209 72.10 10.68

208 19.68 4.82

201 32.75 8.08

197 28.26 7.02

199 29.63 6.07

Commander's Predictor Tests

Test Mean

Standard

Deviation

84
c0

•H

Tf

O

T

3C U1 IN

o

VIM

O IO to

•So

•• ' > u

0)eo

cd 4-* K1 vO

s

2 D. -H r~ »o g g* o (N Kl w U • • * « 1-

_1 41 C

pri

CO Ul

•H -H CT> (N

s

19 'rt

o

PH

o

X -^

••

*

U -rt V .C X <

inBo

•H *-<

o l/> pH

<-l l/l CT. i-H I—I

M (0

V i—i to <N

V

UH

••

•

E0

0

3

D

!/5

t)

|

rH

0

•S

•H

4-1 4-> fN

^ in

It 9> -H f-l

PH

to

>

II

h

U

0

*Ju

C -H

H

O -H

1EC

•H«

*J 4-1 B O V Q

O

f-H

to

t-H

(N

(A i->

0

<W

1<

0)

•oc

irt

u

4JH

ro

PH

to

to

J< (4 c £ 8H

^gOU 'H oo (N| s M I-» It O (N

41U

a^

M 41 a M a

.H

>z

14-> 60

„I 0

(«B

a

31 4>

O

12 4>

^

3

s V) g

•HO

•H 4)

a 4>

tfjN

>S to a.

3;

to

00

rsi TIt

t-~ ai

00 Ifl >£> f~t

^,

to to (M

o

t

LO

o

o

s 00 <?l CM to

to to (M ^H

I--o

00

r--

o

CM

to (N

Tt to

to PH

IN 00

00

IN

'..

IN 1 B B PN O in

M

O -H •H

B

E

H t»

M

O

4J 4J 4-> 4) •H

4)

B 4>

O ^H

i .

4-1 4J

4-» VI

Sa

4-> if

C4 4)

Jo

*O ^,?

aH

< 4J

ou -3

H

isla

^5

§

•H

I« o. M 4>

Si
o

ina

•Hua>o

co

•H

i-4

w

§c

VI OS H 0 > o

t>

occ0

r-i •H a w u a

t) <u u u a I,

-i Hi

a.

i-ta

m

o 4)

•H

^

c «J 3 •H

x: i-H u •H

0) .fl S < wco

•H «-> *-• <fl « 5) O H 0J eo

*-l •H O *J

01 <u

1—)

J3a

o

sou

c »-* 0 rt

>H C9

t-1 *-» c (U

4)O

O

<N 00 LO

o >o

O

K) in 00 LO o> to

11 to

t rsi IN*

t>o

v in B

O.

e

O 'rtw

-a a. v u

4> <J a u

invC

•Hn4) > a

in tf 00 "* 00 1^

<-H to (N

ino

to

vO

O

\0 00

to to

vDo to rj <o

to

o <V4 >o to

1—1 (N (M (N ^H

in

to

00ooo

to

M (N rg

in <N Ol

to

O to

in 1^ o> o to r-.

Tf to to

00 »o yO r--

in (N to to o <N to rg

o> to o in

(N <N

00 CT. CM CT. o —i O

I

i«c

12

•H 4)

I/)N

.1O «-i

co »1 -at)

VIS 4> (H

•H o>au

>S tn a.

IIw in

I« 4)

0.H

O -H

•H«

«-> 4-) S 4)

4)O

SW

o

<w

c ^H

C

0

m rt

mO

•H

c

U 4) •H

M

0 •H -H -1 »J

w 4)

•H

cu

«a

U •-1

w rt -HU 4> if A *-> .C PH a, u U V) U -H 4-1 U

XI00 4) 4> JO

a 4)

0u

JH 35<

J a.

86
APPENDIX .1

INTERCORREUTION MATRIX BETWEEN GUNNERY SUMMARY VARIABLES OVERALL,

AND EACH OF THE 5 BATTALIONS SEPARATELY

SUMMARY CRITERION VARIABLES

Variable Code

I 302

2 303

3 30A

A 305

5 306

6 307

7 308

8 309

9 310

10 311

11 312

Description

Mean Main Gun Opening Tine (Day)

Mean Main Gun Opening Tine (Night)

Mean Main Gun Opening Time (Day and Night)

1st Round Main Gun Hits (Day)

1st Round Main G i Hits (Night)

1st Round Main Gun Hits (Day and Night)

Main Gun Hits (Day)

Main Gun Hits (Night)

Main Gun Hits (Day and Night)

Standardized Measure of Opening Time (Day and Night)

Standardized Measure of Hits (Day and Night)

87

*.-•. /,
s

i

E

E

•^ K * Jt o o

• • -» r» o

« r* -* o m -4

-4 K o o o o

•* O O O O

« fM • O •

•1 *

• I - H

i !

O WV « r» -• t^f- o •t> o

»oo in o o

— IM • a ni •

•I •

•

o o o o o o

o a « » o

o • •« — •

• •

o »^ » ««-»•«

mgo K1KO

K « O f» p o

• H ll

i; —• a Ko

< o -* ni o o

^ « w to

SB& iv^-

••» o ji eo

I

o

u

1 " I

«I •'»^•^ « r« ^« «**« f»***«! «r* o o r» o

• p o » o o

a I

VB O tflr o

"* o o » o o

0 IM • » IM •

» -o -• « t« o

m n o in o o

I I

"

fti wj

OK• oc o

IM o O IM O O

«4M • IAM •

iSA So<

?«5 •£>-!

• • o » oo

^ «o w « w »

I !

vU«1•• »Ml

^U*o' moo «BO O 10 o

«« »4 • m *« •

• •. ii ll a

". 2 i *p •

-a »Ll

1

i

i

,

t" S it o »Ml Ik si • MM • »« o >• — UlM

«» L> IM o

-s ?

f» « O O «•»! « in •*tn~ s ^ • o o «« » o «»a

5

; »I o • m »*••! -• •* • •* — • -.— •

• ae • • • • •

« ' ' • i

-Ä I

E. ll > M« x« •»•• — •» -«

M EE !• •

U « n

r* i

In IM i *• • m • K

M i o '- e o • o O

»I I* m K» M m m

E j i c I *X or ac s

^ 41 < « < « «

l

k

'

> » » » > >

•*^ • <M*^iA » r% •• r-r% a

-.»o • » »«o MB«!

t^ B o tflBO «BO IM B O

••Ä • ——• « — • at S •

• • «i ml

i ' a; i a • «

OV^B •n«'*\ «^««l MIK«

-••»• olo.« BWoi mnui

/IBO «»O A ID o : _ » o

I •

r- h-Äi I a; I - a

88
o »» •* « ^\ • « r« r^ mt^tt « «^ K m n ^ v« «^ r» o «^ «^ «•AI«

o m o »mji -^/> •• Miia i4>m «M/>» MJ<X 003 — JI —

4 • •«

' — «1 a x

« * #A# ««^K M »^ -• ##%«« «Mw« (M#««« ^M«« a«^«« «• « fs- o ^ •*

o • irm •«« MiftM r> « 0 — « o »«o ««o ««o 000 — .ri — o«o

"• r- • • » •«! • • -• o«s -• a o o«o •«« o » s» o o o x> 3 -. o«o

« •* r 1

^ r* O W^^> Altf*(t fg «* r- •««%«« 4««*« ««MAI O «N •«

«tnc •«» IM jt» » • •• a«e » «o >-«o eoo

• «M M««* 1^««« »«• • M«O ^«o — « o o o

WOT w I

4— (

rt »-* .« ni *-» KI i-( ^. ^.

«CO rwjl» ««a

crao •«^•« «i«o

WOT wi)|

a

I

o

z

u

: o a • 1

- • «

*% ^

* fit* • » — « « a « « — 0 « o m • o

• •*-• OA— -• »-, -g 01 ,'» -• « «-« ^ -v. rt -t

ni«o 000 ^-«o ««o « jn ^ «-ou

««O O O »««O -«90 «9«« *«90

** OT ** t WOT w 1

«AM On« MAf* •« A «• ^ «* •«

»Cm -.«». nt i« o o«o a«a

K»M « « •• »••• IP • O • » o

• «n •«

» « O

o « e»

wio wf w in wn

« «in» o««

r o «m «• —

r ^s^ « A a »^W4 f*«*** Jt»S^ ««Aart

>oo ««e ««•• ««o

1 o «ao (M »o -4«o I • « • Ml • « •

Ä*^-« »^»^. «A««

M«O »«in*« »««o

•««o »«•« «490

i/\ • •« • j, #

C

o

-p

cd

n

S «N

« >%C

» Jt /I

» » r«

O A M «A« MA««

oao «MO«« 000 O o *«I99 tntfo

• AA m^t- n«A-< «AS IMAM

9«.a »««« •* o » (r s\ j* >- o o

«90 ^9«« 090 99*1 090 ill »«« • il* «a • /* •

WOT w ( WOT WOT

Jl A W NAM O AW «A« 9 Al- A A*! -0 AP- N AMI A A - 1 A*-

9 om 0 «ipe OOO »IP J> AIP W niiP 0 «IP m MP » A|P A 0 IP 0

a > 9 0 »9a O O

O •

» 9 M

O •

OT 9 w

•« •

»9A « 9 A

A •

<> 9 -

«« •

« 9 A

«« «

090

0 «

« 9 A

A • A

fti in » 000

eoo furfi»

1 1 1 N 1 H • « • II 1 H A H I H

w OT w OT w OT w OT w 10 w OT w OT w OT WOT

«% A O A« O A 9 O A« «A« IP At* « A « IM A A «A«

IP O PI « 9 O « 9 -« A A « « a> « » 9 « « « 41 O 9 « O

9 O O 9 (^ « 9 A OT« A IP 9 Kl N » A » 9 N »90 » 9N • A • A • A • O • 9 • ^ • O •

M • • • •

• • 1 II 1 1 * I 1 II w m WOT w OT w« WOT WOT w OT w OT WOT

A- • A« O AN «A!M «A 9 r* AO « A « J1 A A «A«

«1 0 on • «IP » o<l N » IP S « IP « 9 IP N OIP O a IPN

« 0 ni9 « • 9 11 I»« M| 090 a 9 M) f- 9 A P* 9 O

• 0 • e • O • N • 0 • A • IP • A «

• • • • • • • •

1 I 1 I II • 1 II 1 M

w OT w OT w OT w 10 w OT w OT w OT w OT WOT

89
I

«« «

9 rsm o « • « «r«- fM ^ K

• OO ••• ^ » I» OK-«

-• • o om» » m M o i-.

»^« m «-M m i^MI

om« ««m« y» m o

«mo

H * I H » W <o ** n

w m wn

» m n m « »MM

V « a o « o » * o « « o

» m o a IO o « m o >im o

a • o • »^ • « •

•

H

•

II

•

N

•

*^ J> w A w m w t/1

i»^r^ em»« m«*»

w »> w «n

> »« m ^ «M o M •

i o -v « r- e « •

o — m * 9 m •

me »m« • >

«•oo o « f- o o o • « e —r» J»

ivm a «me A* m o

«

ft.

r

o

3

(M»« — M M m M ji « M « yi M « « M •« o M •« «M^

m«o ««« o» « /> » o ««« ««o ooo o « rm m m *m*i «m«« «mo ^ m « fume o o ««m«

««••«••«•^ • O 9 J\ »O O •

o« « « « o

« m « c m 3

k.

I*.

O

» « e » « - m* m — « o O « O o O 3

• mm mm« >im « e m o «mo o o

e • a • o * • • « • o •

• • • • •

1 N « -"

w « "« »M w« w M w w

• -.•« ^> M^. M-» — « M«. O M -< » -.rM

er- « irr-o or- — m «« COO » « e

inm o «mm o m •« rf> m -. o o «me ni • o • IM • V« • o • « •

• • • • •

II 1 H -« H

^e "m w n w« — m w »

"-• -* » <-• 'V O ^ — «M»4 «^9 ^1««w« *« ^ » J% *>w*

««9 «03 9 « O Ol « « 0«0

M Kl O «IrtO «KIO 'Wt« «MO

z

a.

x» --• » •». ^ «*

« « « *t K O

MM» »MO

O • « •

9- « O Of".« » « O

9MO O M -• ^ M O

9 * ru • 9 •

§

CO

-P

-IJI

«M«

««a s?s • MK

T^ « P<-

O M M

O 3 9

9 M r^

« « «

• MM

•« « o

«MM

rf< «o ^ « «

mMm

1^ « o

«MrC» 1"

m Mm

<» « 9 3

o «mm «mm » moi e o in m •< om o «mo Mm » xi m o « m M j< m o J

urn a • o • e • «« o • in • O • « < X • • • • • • • • • • • > K « • I 1 — H • N H N II 1 n N

> w « — « ** « w w — «1 w in w (0 w m w in — in w in «

a w

o

u «MX « M.« OM •« « Mf •« M r- MM « mM,n « M« m M ?M O M » m M'M « r-o o a o o O O O r-» i^ o r- M m « « o » « Mf-rfl fxi « r^ o o » m «r>

o o « o X« o O O » m-M o m — -vi m « «m M «mo Mm « o« » Mm»

m ^ • a • o • o • m m o • M • IU • o • o • o •

Z X • • • • • • • • • • •U « *4 N • M N II 1 II N « II u

o > w (A - io w to w in ^ tn w IO w in w m — in « w a» w Ü z

«1

u

M

<r u.

O M-* « M -« « M « — -.m ««MM OM» «M « «MM « M « » 4

O O O 8 O O

. M ^Mm «MM «M« s^^r- ««^m iv«-*« mM« ao*^« ««^M «M«

»o mo« r-oo ««a or-« ««o m«o r>r>e ««« r^oo «««

o ^«M o«o «mm j^mo «mm mmm mmo Mm« o«o Mm«

in

u

n

«I

u

win

c

M

u.

90
R

o

M

4->

P

CO

CQ

! 111 Li Ml V« '-a *-» 'f1-

s

-

ft

*-*

i

»

rt?ii«i I» in m ^ fM

s

ifi r!

(I I

£

u

Si

-

.s sb Hi-«si m in in m punI

81?6

« ^

tii is? 5« in in in ^ IM in m m m I

^inin^ininrU=Mni'MsHn

I-! .\,s »-: •-! -A -I --I -a ^ -A •-« "«

|!!! B B C Q ^ ^ Ö

?

:! W ^ I

•i m in in in in m in in fi H] fn

^ mi ifi m m in in in in in in PI |

irininjnininininin:inin?n t

I kn\ -Li -u --s -» •-» •-« "rf ,-

!,

: -

s

, - t

> *!

I I

= I s i j

i 5

'<

91
> r* M •**»»» « n <M

im« » x />

y> w-fl o a -.

^ » o ~ -

' )M a 009

1 » — e o

» ~ « » m «

•^ • ~

,. |5I j5? IS! «I |St |?5 f5: «I pi |5! |c

— « w « — •» » w a ^

a • »i » » o

O • M •

»•^'M « •*! o r* -n o

»ao aao aao

a -.«i

» 10 a

a a «

o ^ - a » o

e -o o MM o

p* a o o a -«

w« •• -*» -Ä

a -»«M a -. n a ~ a D — -

a »i« r» ni». a M yi •M *l 0

M a • •• « yi a « 0 a 0

a***» «^\o 000 a«^«

•*ao »^ao o a a«fy

a»« »->« an-»

**»»^o «iwyt ^«%o

aaa i/ia^ »aa

-»»

. <« a

ta -

a M j»

•«a a

M «t o

• **•* a*%** y^i^** «MX

!« ?3S i^S f?3

» « w! w« w»» wg

a

a -.0

itM a

a«^a MM a

a -.M

a M • -."»IM

0 n —

000

a -««

a "t 0 a M M

a -. -•

a m c a« c:

a -. -M

am a a Ki 0

a a a «> a a <i a a •<> » a -* 0 0 0*0 "» » "3 a a 3 j( a a a » "i .n a 0

-» 0 • 0 • a • —• • 0 • a • »• • a • a 0 • a •

§

-H • mp> H> -^ f-

» -U o -#M -y

f» • O f» • #»

N -< M II i M N r

* »« wm w« w M ^ (A w m •^ (O wM ^

^

** M nj ~nt rf»« — • MOT • «*- rfi -» — K» -1 f0

O O -**» « •w *» a M *» 3 » ^ M » *» 0 -M M » -^ » 3

O • « -* «r « 0 0 « 0 » « O M » O- r* * -* !M « O j

• -* • S • * • «V • ^ • 0 • < • • • • • • >

m II 1 II ft • w H

w M w M w IA — «S w «ft w M w CO win «

m rfi •(»ij< -.«10 an.» omo äni£

• a» ^«»T »a- A«5 oao 5»!:

-5 w 10 — ta

1 H

w 10 a • a

w a

I > 1 N

w 10 1 11 — 1»

— M

w (A r

M a z

f-na

M«I a

a a m

0 •

O #H M

OOO

O O

O •

MM M

• MO

«a 0

XI •

e M a

»» a 0

O ns

MM«

«am

a •

MM1P

IT. a 0

M •

a rnr

t» -M >»

a a -

ana

JIM M

a a 0

M •

-«no

"»M />

ma <r.

M •

Kt n -«

aM 0

• a 0

-«no

•» M J»

IT a 0

M •

•-•

tk

•-t

2

U

>-•

w « w ! w (A «#l -Ä f

«l

•n a

?35

On —

a M o

a a o

a •

— n«

— i« a

10 a •«

«no **- n a

M it a K iA «

a a m IA a •* Ma«

.n/l

MPA a

«a -A

lA-> «

IT-A •

oa a

On -« ^ n «

»2(2 irm«

a a o o a a

z

k.

u

J»

o

A

M—A

92

L
»»a ^re -a » • OVM «> » ,/v M^ft «9« » a- '-> c T -n _» -j o t. a» *» O -• O (\|>«0 O •• • •»•«o -f -. -• <«t>«0 'V — » » « — *t»*>j O O ^ — 'V

a • » »o»« • -v •« • o • •%* • - »o «-4 •

• • • » • • • • • • • •

N N » H I N N • H W I H I II -^ H • M

MM w «A » w tf) wM wtO wtf) wM wM w» wtf) ^tf)

« « v^ OM<^ A^M ff «-• iT IM««0 -U -« O r- -» o 0«MO OOO X, » -^ 0«-3

i^ K» "y «-UM •»««'W » * O « » O ^«O SVO M«0 O O ••MM OtfO

-* • -HI • -* • <M Jl • J\ • f^ «C • C • ^ »O •

• •••••••••• •

I • • M • H U H M H M *• H I M <^ II

w« wiA — i/j w(A w j) —»i» w^> ««(A **;/> w« —y)

• »» M « . -g ^ o « »» - ^i ».-.

OM S » » o » - y> o — 3 o — a

» njo » - - /t a M tt a o m 9 o

> »-« at " -* « ^ — O -4 o

« •

t- M ^ -* ^ « • -o «. ^ » -» -* -* **• M «-w o <-» «« • « « » M «ftl 9 9« -H «. o /»-•-• fn -^ o OOO

2 o «•^ » » ^1 • ^" * « « o •M * »M « « o o o

»« o • O • O • « • * • r» •

^i 7 • • • • • « •

m | H II N -

-< > w tf> - »ft w A w (A w n «# 10 wtf)

-^

rf* **rf* mmm « " M ^ « - r> «-• S#««| M ^M

A. "*• « -• « M-^^. M » ^ « Mo o - o • •• •O — J

o ^ M O •«mo * •• o «^ « O « 9 O J o V « o

J» « —

« 9 O

C

o

p

CQ

2 o

m « >

Jl -^ O «MM

•

I M N

o ^ « h- ^ »r

« -• /> * A *! «

a m «4 r\i M o

» ^ — o > M

f*. •« o

« ^ 4 » *% —

O ** '* S •« O

-4 » » f*1» « o

V« •

a « — A. " X t/l'^C

-. — O »-•/» » -• J^

««a ^a*«\ 990

• » J> » - —

•

M — o

« 4 o

o

o

o

•

• H

9 m ««

o »• M

^- •-• o

It ~»

* — t>

» » O

s-1

a » o un9o ooo

» t*. -* T

3 O O J»» O «««t «

O O rM — o mm o

o • » • fi •

• • •

-• « N 1 N

wiO w n w (A

«•tO w ( w- Jl w 1

93

IT i
DISTIItUTION

AMI ÜivtMdutifjn Litt

4 0*S0 (M»H*I

7 HQOA IDAMI CS/I

I HOOA (DAftPBRI

I HOÜA IOAMA AH|

1 HOOA (l)AHl HRE POI

I HOOA (SCRD IDI

I HUOA (OAMI DOT Cl

1 MCXJA (DAPC PM/A)

I HOOA (DACH (T/ Al

I HOOA (OACf HRf |

I HOOA (OAPE MPO Cl

I HOOA (DAP( DWI

I HOOA (DAK Hflu

I HOOA (OAPt CPSI

I HOOA (OAFD MrAl

I HOOA (OARD ARS PI

I HOOA (OAPC PAS Al

t HQOAIDUSAORI

I HOOA IDAMO RORI

I HOOA (DASGI

1 HOOA IOAI0PII

l Chu-t. Ccnvilt On (OA OTSCI. Acklph., MO

I Mil Ant Hum Rn, OOOHif . OAO If »LSI

I HOUSARAL. ATOSutlk. ATTN: ARAOP R

I HO Fine Army. ATTN: AFKA Ol Tl

7 HO Fit» Army. Ft (an Houston

I 0.. Aimv Sit Sludu» Otc. ATTN OAVCSA IOSPI

I Oil Chwl ol SO. Stuih« Olc

I IKIWCR. ATTN CPS/OCF

I th.'Ainty Ui. Ptnuwm. ATTN; RSB Ch,.l

1 Th« Atinv Lib. Pmtnan. ATTN: ANRAL

I Olc. Aw SKI O) HW Aimy (HIiDI

I Itch Suppoit Olc, OXS

I USASA, Atlmiton. ATTN IARO r

I USA Rich Otc. Outtum. ATTN: Lih Scicnat Oit

7 lISARIEM.N.mrk. ATTN SGRD UE CA

i UBtlIC. % I Cliwii. »tIW r,itii:MOA

I USAIMA. FIBKIM. AITN AISUCTDOM

1 USAIMA. Ft Braw. ATTN. Mvquit Lib

1 US WAC Cti ft Sch, Ft McCWtan. ATTN: Lib

I US WAC Cti * Sch. Ft McCWIm. ATTN: Tnq Oil

1 USA auartwmMMr Sch, FILM. ATTN: ATSM-TE

I Inlelliqtnct Matnitl On Olc. EWL, Ft HoWxid

I USASESi^ulScti. FlGorrton.ATTN: ATSO EA

I USACIUIIUIIICII aSch. Fl Hannllon. ATTN: ATSCTE RO

1 USATSCH. FlEuitit, ATTN: Educ AdnKV

1 USA War Collcr, Carlnla B.Macki. ATTN: Lib

7 WRAIR, NniiolKychiany Oiy

1 DLI.SOA. MiHitiicy

1 USA Coneapl Anal Agcy. BalhtMla. ATTN: MOCA MR

1 USA Conoapt Anal A«cy. Bethajda, ATTN: MOCA JF

1 USA Arctic Ta« Ctr. APO Saattla, AITN: STE AC PL Ml

1 USA Arctic Te« Ctr, APO Stank ATTN: AMSTE PL TS

I USA Amwnant Cmd. Hadttiia Amnal. ATTN: ATSK-TEM

I USA Amanvnl Cmd. Roc» Island. ATTN: AMSAR TOO

1 FAA-NAFEC, Atlant v City. ATTN: Library

1 FAA NAFEC, At >ntic City, ATTN: Human Engt Br

1 FAA Aaiona ..cal Ctr, OklKiomtCity, ATTN: AAC 440

7 USA Fid *ity Sch, Ft Sill, ATTN: Library

I USA \.mor Sch, Ft Knoi, ATTN: Library

I USA Arnim Sch. Ft Knoa, ATTN: ATSB-DI C

I USA Arnwi Sch, Ft Kno«. ATTN: ATSB OT TP

1 USA Armw Sch. Ft Kno», ATTN: ATSB CD AO

7 HQUSACOEC, Ft Or«, AHN: Library

I HOUSACOEC. HOtil, ATTN ATEC EX f Hum ratio.»

7 USAEEC. Ft Baniamm Hartnon. ATTN Libraty

1 USAPACOC, Ft Baniamm Harrison. ATTN: ATCP HR

1 USA Comm-Elact Sch. FlManmoulh, ATTN ATSNEA

1 USAEC, Ft Monnouth, ATTN: AMSEL CT HDP

I USAEC, Ft Mamtiaulh. ATTN: AMSEL-PA P

I USAEC. FlMonmouih. ATTN AMSEL SI CB

I USAEC, Ft Monnouth, ATTN C. Fad Oa> Bi

I USA Matariali Sys Anal A«cy, Abaiiiaan, ATTN AMXSV P

I Edgraoad Ananal. Abar4aan.ATTN:SAREA BL H

I USAOidCttftSch, Abafdaan,ATTN: ATSL-TEM-C

7 USA Hum Enfl Lab. Abaiiiaan. ATTN: Library/Dir

I USA Combat Aims Tng Bd, FI Banninq, ATTN: Ad Supatvisor

1 USA Inlanliy Hum Rich Unit, Ft anning, ATTN: Out)

1 USA Inlamiy Id. Ft Banning. ATTN: STFBC If T

I USASMA, Ft tins, ATTN: ATSS 1 RC

1 USA An Oal Sch. Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSA CTO MF

I USA A» Oal Sch. Ft Bliss, ATTN: Tach Lih

I USA AH Dal M. Ft Bliss, ATTN: FILES

I USA An Oal Id, Ft Bliss, ATTN: STEBO PC

1 USA Cmd ft Gantial Sll Colltgt. Ft LaaMnworth, ATTN: Lih

I USACmdftOgnatalSllCollaga, FtUawmmrth, ATTN: ATSW-SE I

I USACmdftOanaralSllCollaga, FlLaawnwnilli, ATTN: EdAdnsot

1 USA Ci.ml.intd Aims Cntbt Dav Art. Fl Lp-lvi-nwolIh/iATTN: OapCdi

1 USACombmatAnnsCmbtOa« Act, FtLaayannorlh. ATTN:CCS

t USA Combinad Arm Cmbt On Act. Ft Lnaamsanh, ATTN: ATCA^A

I USA Comhinad Arms Cmbt Da» Act, Ft Laanantaarth. ATTN: ATCACO-t

I USA Cumlunrd Anm Cmbi Da» Act, Fl Laavrmorlh, ATTN: ATCACC .<;l

I USAFCOM. Night Vision Lab. Ft Bahuu, ATTN: AMSEL-NV-SO

3 USA Conwutat Sys Cmd, Ft Balnoii, ATTN- Tach Library

t USAMEROC FtBalvoir.ATTN StSFB OQ

1 USA Eng Sch, Ft B»l«oir. ATTN: Library

1 USATotwgiOhicLab. FtBalvon, ATTN FTL TD-S

I USATopoftaphicLab, FtBaltoit. ATTN:STINFOCentar

I USA Topognuhic Lab, Fl Belvoii, ATTN: ETL GSL

I USA IntHlHrnri' Ot ft Sdi, Fl HtudUH j. ATTN: CTD MS

1 USAInla*liganc»CtiftSob, FlHuachuca, ATTN: ATS-CTD-MS

I USA IntalliganoaCti ft Sch, Ft Huachuca. ATTN: ATSI TE

1 USA Intalligtn« Cti ft Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI- TEX OS

1 USA Intalllganca Cti ft Sch, Fl Huachuca. ATTN: ATSI CTS- OR

I USA Intalllganca Cti ft Sch, Ft Huachuca. ATTN: ATSi-CTD- DT

1 USA Intalliganoa Cti ft Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI - CTO-CS

t USA Intalllganca Cti ft Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: OAS/SRD

I USA Intallignioa Cti ft Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN- ATSI • TEM

1 USA Intalllganca Cti ft Sch. Ft Huachuca, ATTN: Library

1 COR, HO Ft Huachuca. ATTN: Tach Ral Di»

7 COR. USA ElactionicPiyg Girt. ATTN: STEFP MT-S

I Ha TCATA. ATTN: Tadi Library

1 Ha TCATA, ATTN: ATCATOPO. Ft Hood

I USA RaciuilingCmd, FtSharidan. ATTN: USARCPM P

1 Senior Army Ad»,, USAFAGOO/TAC, Elgin AF Au« FM No. 9

1 HO, USARPAC. OCSPER. APO SF 966» ATTN: GPPE SE

1 Slimson Lib, Acadamy ol Haalth Sciaticas, Ft Sam Houston

1 Marina Corps Inst,. ATTN: Daan MCI

1 HO, USMC. Commandant, ATTN: Coda MTMT

1 HO, USMC, Commandant, ATTN: Coda MPI 70 78

2' SCG Acadamy, Naw London. ATTN: Admisskm

2 USCG Acadamy, Naw London, MTTN: Library

1 USCG Tränint Cti, NY, ATTN: CO

I USCG Tiaming Cti. NY, ATTN: Educ S»c Olc

I USCG, Psydinl Res St. DC. ATTN' GP 1/62

I HO Mid-Raoga Bi, MC Ott. Ouantico, ATTN: PftS D»

95
1 1 US kMtmt Cw|H luiuin Olc. AMC, Mmandtia. ATTN AMCGS f

I USATNAOOC, FlMontM. ATTN: ATRO ED

• USATRAOOC, Fl M„i..i«, ATTN: ATPH AO

1 USATRAOOC, Ft MonrM. ATTN: ATTS EA

I USAFotcmCmd. FlMcMitfton, ATTN: LiUary

I USA Analion Twl M, Fl Ru.km. ATTN- STEBG- PO

I USA Afcy lw A>»twn Sjln» M Ruck«, ATTN Litamy

I USA A«cy lw Avulioo Sjlely. Ft Ruck«, ATTN: trtuc Ad»i«o>

I USA AnMnn Sch. Ft Ruck«. ATTN: PO Oitm* 0

I HOUSA A»<i>on Syi Cmd. St Laun, ATTN: AMSAV-ZDR

1 USA MMMi M Tm« Act, Edwvih AFB, ATTN: SAVTE T

I USA Ail (VI S. t. F i Him, ATTN: ATSA TFM

I IISA An M..l.il.ly Hv.h MK.Uli. MollHlflrl, AITN: SAVUL AS

I USA AyxtKiu Sch, Rn Tn«M«l, Ft Ruck«, ATTN: ATST TRIM

I USA Anttion Sch, CO. Ft Ruck«, ATTN: ATST D A

1 HO, OARCOM, AtoivtOiK, ATTN: AMXCD TL

I HO. OARCUM. ANnandtia. ATTN: COR

I US Military AMkmy. Wnt Point. ATTN: Stiidt Unit

I US Milit«y Audnny, ««Ml Point, ATTN' Olc nl Milt Lilulil.

1 US MiliU.y A. *lrii.y Wrtl Point, ATTN: MAOR

I USA StamlMili/ation Gp. UK, FPO NY. ATTN: MASE GC

I Die ot Hi** Rich Ai ImqlOM ATTN Cod. 462

J Olc ol Nival Rich Ailirajlou, ATTN: Coda 4S8

I Olc ol Naval Rich. Arlin«ton. «TTN: Coda «50

1 Olc ol Naval Rich. Ailniglon, Al TN Oorta 441

I N,iv,il ACIIIMK Mad Rat t ah Pyniamia ATTN: Acooi Sch Div

I N.nal Aai.iM« Mail Rn I ah P«iwcol«, ATTN Coda LSI

I Naval AKintic Mrd Rn Lab. Pamacola. ATTN: Coda LS

1 Chwl ol NavlVii. ATTN Pni OR

1 NAVAIRSTA. NuHolk. ATTN: Salaly Cli

I NayOcwiogiaiihic. DC. ATTN:Co«a«»l,awnkT*ch

I Crnm ol Naval Anal. ATTN Doc Ctr

I NayAiiSyiCom. ATTN Am MIX

I NxBuMad, ATTN: M3

1 KjvHaUcoptwSubSqua?. rPOSFaeMI

1 AFMRL (FT) Williami AFB *

I AFHRL ITTI Lo«fy AFB

1 AFHRL(AS) WAFB. OH

2 AFHRL (DOJZI Brooki AFB

I AFHRL IDOJNI Lackland AFB

1 HQUSAF IINYSOI

I HQUSAF IDPXXA)

1 AFVTG IRDI Randolph AFB

3 AMRL (HEI WPAFB. OH

2 AF In« ol Tech. WPAFB. OH. ATTN: ENE/SL

1 ATC IXPTDI Randolph AFB

I USAF AaioMcrt Lih, Bronki AFB ISUL 4). ATTN: DOC SEC

I AFOSR (Nil, Arlington

I AF Log Cnxt. McClcll.in AFB. ATTN: ALC/DPCRB

1 Air F.praa Audamy, CO. ATTN: Dtp! ol Sal Sen

S NavPcn ft Day Ctr. San Diago

2 Navy Mad Nauropiychiatnc Rich Unit, San Diago

1 Nay Elactronic Lab. San Diago. ATTN: Rn Lab

I NavTrngCan. San Diago. ATTN: Coda BQHO-Lib

1 NavPoilGraScli. Monlcnry. ATTN: Coda SBAl

1 NiwPintGiaSch. Montaiay. ATTN: Coda 2124

1 NavTingEquipCtr, Orlando. ATTN: Tech Lib

I US Dapt ol Labor. DC. ATTN: Manpoum Admin

1 US Dapl ol Juttica, DC, ATTN; Drug Enlotea Admin

1 Nat Bur ol Standards, DC. ATTN: Computgr Into Saclion

I Nat Charing Houia for MM-Into. Rockvill*

1 Den«r Federal Ctr. Lakawood, ATTN: BLM

12 Delenia Documentation Cantar

4 Dir Piych. Army Hq, Runall Ofci. Canbaira

I Scianiific Advw, Mil Bd, Army Hq. Runall Olci, Canberra

1 Mil and Air Attache. Austrian Embauy

1 Ontie da Recherche Dot Factaun, Humaine da la Delanae

Nationale. Bruiiels

2 Canadian Joini Stall Waihington

1 ClAil Suit. Royal Canadian AF. ATTN: Pen Sid Anal Bt

3 Chial. Canadian Del Rich Stall, ATTN: C/CROS(WI

4 Bntnh Del Stall. Biitnh Embaiay. Waihington

1 Del ft Civil Inat ol Envno Medicine. Canada

I AIR CRESS. Kaniington. ATTN: Into Sy» Bi

I Miliiaarpayknlagnk Tieneite. Copenhagen

I Military Altacha. French Embauy. ATTN: Doc Sac

1 Medacm Chel, C.E R P A. Ar^nal. Toulon/Naval Fiance

1 Pun Sciantilic ON. Appl Hum Engi Rich Die. Miniitiy

ol Detente. New Delhi

I Pvt Rich Olc Libfuv, AKA, Iwael Delenie Foiun

I MmiiMfn van DafamW. OOOP/KL Aid Sociaai

Piychotagncha Zakan. Tha Hague. Nalherlanrti

96